Kingsland’s Neighbourhood Development Plan (KNDP) has been prepared in
response to The Localism Act 2011, which gives parish councils and other relevant
bodies new powers to prepare statutory Neighbourhood Development Plans (NDPs)
to help guide development in their local areas.

1.2

These powers give local people the opportunity to shape new development, as
planning applications are determined in accordance with national planning policy
and the local development plan, and NDPs form part of this framework.

1.3

The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (Localism Act 2011)
require a Consultation Statement to set out the consultations undertaken for the
NDP.

1.4

Part 5 Paragraph 15 (2) of The Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations
2012, defines a Consultation Statement as a document which includes:
a) details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed NDP.
b) a description of how they were consulted
c) a summary of the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted
d) a description of how these issues and concerns have been considered and, if
appropriate, addressed in the proposed plan.

1.5

Guidance from Department for Communities and Local Government (10 Sept 2013)
states that:

‘the Consultation Statement submitted with the draft Neighbourhood Plan should
reveal the quality and effectiveness of the consultation that has informed the Plan
proposals.’
1.6

This Statement sets out details of all consultation and engagement activity. It lists
how the local community and other stakeholders have been involved and how their
input has informed the development of the Plan.

1.7

The aim of the consultations in Kingsland parish has been to ensure that the widest
possible understanding of the reasons for and content of the Neighbourhood Plan,
and to ensure that every resident and stakeholder has the opportunity to contribute
to the development of the Plan.

1.8

This Statement demonstrates that there has been extensive community and
stakeholder engagement and consultation throughout the process.There is evidence
available to support all the statements regarding consultation summarised below.

1.9

Section 2 below details how the consultations undertaken as part of the Kingsland
Parish Plan have made a substantial contribution to the KNDP. As a result the presubmission draft plan contains many references to the Parish Plan and the part it
has played in the development of the KNDP policy evidence base.

2. The link between Kingsland’s Parish Plan and Neighbourhood Development
Plan
2.1

Kingland began work on its Parish Plan in early 2012.

2.2

At its first Parish Plan public meeting it was agreed that its public consultation and
engagement programme should be designed to meet all the needs of the current
Parish Plan and make a significant contribution to the consultation needs of the
proposed Neighbourhood Plan when it commenced at a later date. The advantages
of this approach were to:
 reduce resources and costs
 avoid consultation confusion and fatigue
 speed up the Neighbourhood Planning process by giving it a consultation headstart.

2.3 As can be seen from Fig. 1 below, once the key consultations and major data
gathering for the parish plan were completed, Kingsland Parish Council then initiated
its application for designation as a Neighbourhood Plan area.

3. Kingsland’s Parish Plan Consultation Process
3.1 There were 2 main stages to the Parish Plan consultations:
a. Informal Consultations to establish the key issues, needs and aspirations of the
community. This was done via public meetings, targeted events with special
interest groups, and through the use of on-line media. The feedback was then
collated into topics and graded against frequency.
b. Formal Consultation - this was delivered via a formal questionnaire distributed to
all residents over the age of 11 within the parish. Its purpose was to establish
whether the findings from the informal consultations were a true reflection of the
views of the wider community. A key design principle during the drafting of the
questionnaire was that the questions deployed were largely informed by the
preliminary informal consultations. In this way, it could be argued that the
consultations were “community-led”.
3.2 Both of the main consultation stages mentioned above were tailored to the needs of
both the Parish Plan and the follow-on NDP.
3.3 April 2012 - First Public Event
The first public meeting took place in April 2012. Its main purpose was to publicly launch
the process and formally establish a Steering Group. However, the opportunity was also
taken to gather in the thoughts of attendees on what they valued most about the parish
and to log their key concerns. The opportunity was also taken to establish what
organisations and interest groups existed in the parish with a view to communicating
further with the identified groups.
3.4 Subsequent Steering Group Meetings were then held on a monthly basis, and
were advertised in advance as open for the public to attend. (See Section 5 for details).
3.5 November 2012 - Community Consultation Weekend
The Big Map events were held in Kingsland’s Coronation Hall over two days. The
engagement method used was based on the ‘Planning for Real’ model, using large scale
maps of the parish and a range of colour-coded topic flags which participants could stick
into the maps. The key themes were ‘Growing Up’; ‘Health and Well Being’; ‘Rest and
Play’; ‘Housing and Village Services’; ‘The Environment’. Each event took place over a 6
hour period, so that participants could wander in at their own chosen time, and engage at
their own pace and in their own way. There were stewards on hand to explain the
process, the maps and flags, to informally discuss issues with participants, and, where
appropriate, record their comments.
Over 200 people attended, representing over 20% of the parish population. As attendees
arrived they were asked to put sticky dots on an age/gender chart and, similarly, sticky
dots onto a map showing where they lived. The intelligence gathered showed that
attendance at the events was broadly representative of the age and gender profiles of the
parish, and the areas of residency.

The output from these weekend events was collated and categorised in terms of topics,
location and frequency and presented in spread-sheet format to the steering group to aid
them in the design and content of the proposed Formal Questionnaire. This complex

information is available upon request.

3.6 Other Targeted Group Events
As it was envisaged that the formal Parish Plan questionnaire would be targeted at those
over the age of 11, and that some younger teenagers might find this type of consultation
challenging, further informal consultation were targeted at these younger cohorts. As a
result, separate meetings were held in the local primary school, where the process was
explained and a drawing competition held to help engage them with results shown at the
event. A tour of the school to look at future needs, was also taken with the head-teacher.
Small-scale discussions with local youths also took place.
Ethnicity was not targeted separately as so very few non-white British ethnic groups live in
the village and are already fully part of the community.
A summary of these consultations can be found at Appendix 1 below.
3.7 Formal Consultation: February 2013 - Parish Plan/NDP Questionnaire.
This was published and distributed to 460 households and businesses in the parish. The
Parish Plan Steering Group received oversight advice from Herefordshire Council during
the drafting of the questionnaire. In order to achieve a larger and more representative
response and also enable more granular data to be gathered the questionnaire was
designed for completion by individuals rather a household as a whole. A total of 886
questionnaires were distributed, representing one for each individual over the age of
eleven.
The questionnaire contained 55 questions covering all of the main issues raised at the
preliminary consultation events, including housing, infrastructure, services & facilities,
traffic, transport, road safety, parking, environment, sustainability, health, welfare,
business, employment, tourism, and police & crime.
Respondents were also asked whether they would be supportive of the development of a
Neighbourhood Plan. The positive response to this question gave the Parish Council the
mandate to initiate the process for developing a Neighbourhood Plan.
Kingsland Neighbourhood Development Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Consultation Statement (November 2015)

Page 6

In addition the questionnaire contained a number of demographics questions such as age,
employment status, house type, approximate location in parish, length of residency, etc.
The full questionnaire can be found at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nk6m78umsiitb5h/Kingsland%20Parish%20Plan%202013%2
0Survey%20Questionnaire.pdf?dl=0
51% of the questionnaires delivered were returned, representing 57% of households. The
returns were independently processed and analysed into 800 pages of data, including
cross-tabulations against different demographics groups.
The key findings in the form of charts can be found in the published parish plan at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f9ffg3pfcdno2je/Kingsland%20Parish%20Plan%20Final%20M
aster%2012%20%2009%2013.pdf?dl=0
and in the key data charts at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gi2sxroql4ixwqv/Kingsland%20Parish%20Plan%202013%20
Survey%20Data%20Summary%20Charts.pdf?dl=0
The sections in both documents related to housing is particularly pertinent to the NDP;
namely Pages 7 to 10 in the Parish Plan and pages 3 to 10 in the Data Charts.
The Questionnaire open text responses can be found at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/rfe61nfhgfgt3lg/Kingsland%20Parish%20Plan%202013%20S
urvey%20Responses%20to%20Open%20Ended%20Questions.pdf?dl=0
3.8 Formal Adoption.
The Parish Plan was formally adopted by Kingsland Parish Council and published in
September 2013.

4. Kingsland’s NDP Consultation Process to date.
4.1 August 2013 - Formal Designation as a Neighbourhood Area
Kingland Parish Council submitted its application for Designation as a Neighbourhood
Area in June 2013. There were no representations during the 6 week formal consultation
period.
4.2 November 2013 – Housing Needs Survey.
Resident’s views on development captured in the Parish Plan questionnaire showed
strong support for housing for local people or people with a local connection. When
asked ‘If additional houses were to be built, which size or type should they be?’ 74% of
respondents chose the option of ’For local people/local connections’. This was captured in
the final Parish Plan which states that ‘Going forward, there is support for the

development of a Neighbourhood Plan. This will be informed by a new study to assess
the housing needs of the parish.’

This commitment was discharged in November 2013, when Herefordshire Council’s
Housing Partnerships Division commissioned a postal survey of the parish of Kingsland to
assess the need for housing over the next 3 years. Questionnaires were mailed out to all
households in the parish of Kingsland, a total of 472 households.
24 questionnaires were returned that contained information about 29 households who
wished to move into another home within the next 3 years. Of the 29 households who
wished to move, 23 wished to remain within Kingsland parish, 4 did not wish to remain
within the parish and 2 wished to return to the parish. Of the 25 households that wished
to move to a home in Kingsland parish, 7 were found to have a need for affordable
accommodation, 12 were found to have a need for a home on the open market and 2
were found to have a ‘mixed tenure’ need.
These results were used to inform the NDP pre-submission draft; namely paragraph
1.19, Policies KNDP1(section d), KNDP2(section c) and KNDP14 (sections d and i).
4.3 January 2014 - First public meeting to form KNDP group.
The first KNDP public meeting was held four months after the publication of the
Kingsland Parish Plan. Those in attendance included parishioners, parish councillors and
members of the Parish Plan steering group. The Kingsland Neighbourhood Development
Plan Group (KNDP) was formed, officers elected and terms of reference agreed with the
Parish Council.
The newly formed KNDP group consisted of 3 parish councillors, to become 5 during the
later stages and 8 additional parishioners. To aid continuity, two of the parishioners were
original members of the Parish Plan steering group. This included a freelance qualitative
market research professional who oversaw the impartiality and reach of the various
consultations. In addition, the clerk to the Parish Council acted as the steering group’s
finance officer.
Although Kingsland village is the most populated area, the parish contains a number of
outlying settlements, including Shirlheath, Cobnash and Mortimers Cross, all of which are
mentioned in a development context in the Herefordshire Core Strategy.

Mortimerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cross is part of the parish and set for windfall development but it also
straddles three other parishes. The KNDP steering group advertised for members in all
the settlements but almost all volunteers are from Kingsland village. One member is from
West Town, and one from Cobnash although another Cobnash resident joined towards
the end of the process. A Shirlheath parishioner attended a steering group meeting but
did not want to join the committee. Also a resident from Shirlheath attended one of the
parish walks mentioned at 4.9 below. A letter was delivered to all Shirlheath residents
(See Appendix 2) informing them of the NDP process and of their new RA1 designation
and inviting them to get involved but unfortunately no one came forward.
4.4 February 2014 onwards - Monthly KNDP meetings schedule and publicised
as open to the public. All of the agenda and minutes are available on the Kingsland Life
website at:
http://kingslandlife.com/index.php/agendas-and-minutes/
4.5 April 2014 - Consultation Sub-Group formed
The sub-group was formed to plan a major NDP community event. It was agreed that the
event would focus on the key findings from the parish plan consultations and use these to
develop a draft vision, a set of draft objectives, and outline criteria and options for
the Kingslandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Neighbourhood Development Plan. The community would then be invited
to give feedback on these four elements.

The consultation material developed for these events can be found at Appendix 3.

4.6 June 7th & 8th 2014 - Weekend Public Consultation Event.
The two-day event (10am to 4pm each day) attracted over 130 residents. A further 30
people attended from outside the parish and their views were recorded separately. KNDP
volunteers recorded and collated feedback from attendees on their responses to the draft
criteria, objectives and vision and their preferences in terms of the draft options.
The material used for these events can be found at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dgr5dwovvv97ss3/June%2014%20Consultation%20Vision%2
0Criteria%20options%20FINAL%20PRINT%20VERSION%20SD%2015.5.14.pdf?dl=0
Output from the 2-day weekend events has been extensively used, along with the
feedback from the Parish Plan consultations, to inform the pre-submission draft of the
KNDP.

Specific voting on the development options for Kingsland and Shirlheath has been
summarised in chart form and can be found at Appendix 4. The full feedback can be
found at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ldyhpf019q9whhr/June%2014%20Consultation%20Biz%20an
d%20%20Public%20Open%20Responses.xlsx?dl=0
The preferred option choices are reflected in the Pre-submission draft of the KNDP;
namely Policy KNDP14a for Kingsland and Policy KNDP15 for Shirlheath.
Kingsland Neighbourhood Development Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Consultation Statement (November 2015)

Page 10

4.7 June 18th 2014 - Business Consultation Event
Following an invitation delivered to all businesses within the parish, 25 people attended
the afternoon/evening event. The presentation material from the weekend public
consultation events was used regarding the vision, objectives, criteria and options and
feedback captured as part of the overall chart shown at Appendix 4. The business
response to the options for Kingsland and Shirlheath were in line with those expressed at
the 2-day public events.
4.8 June 2014 – Event Consultation Materials
were also published and displayed in the local post
office, on the Kingsland Life website
(http://kingslandlife.com/) and in the Kingsland
newsletter. The published materials included
instructions on how residents who missed the main
event could also contribute their views. The few
individuals who did respond in this way expressed
views broadly in line with those expressed by attendees
at the event, and these were added to the ‘Votes
Community’ column of the Feedback chart shown at
Appendix 4 below.
4.9 September 2014 - Parish walks
Three parish walks were undertaken by KNDP
committee members, including parish councillors (and
one parishioner from Shirlheath).
The walks (two in Kingsland and one in Shirlheath were
undertaken to ensure the following:
 That committee members had a good visual
picture of any areas under discussion
 to assess their merits against the emerging
criteria, objectives and policies
 to indicate whether sufficient space appeared to
be contained within the settlement boundary for appropriate growth in line with
Herefordshire’s Core Strategy requirements
 to consider first-hand the concerns of parishioners situated in or close to the sites
under consideration
This enabled the Committee members to visualise the areas under discussion and observe
whether the criteria, objectives and policies were viable. The walks information was written
up as part of the evidence base and can be viewed at:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9n6vq6vl2z62a4q/Walks%20Report%20KNDP%202014%20F
inal.pdf?dl=0
4.10 17th December 2014 to 10th February 2015 - Regulation 14 Public
Consultation.
Parishioners were informed of the formal consultation via the parish newsletter which goes
to every house in the parish at the beginning or just before the start of each month. The
same information was also made available via the parish web site, Facebook and Twitter.
(KNDP updates have been put in the parish newsletter from the start of this project)
Kingsland Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation Statement (November 2015)

Page 11

The Draft Plan was made available to be viewed at www.kingslandlife.com or could be
emailed to residents on request to kingslandneighbourhoodplan@gmail.com
The name, address and contact details of Steering Group members were made available for
any interested party who wished to borrow a paper version of the draft plan.
Details of the residents' survey, large version of maps and other information that informed
the creation of the Plan were made available on line at www.kingslandlife.com and was
also available on request from kingslandneighbourhoodplan@gmail.com
Response forms could be deposited in the designated box inside the Post Office or at
Westmead or scanned and e-mailed to kingslandneighbourhoodplan@gmail.com
Stakeholders and neighbouring parish councils were also consulted directly by email or by
post. Those organisations contacted are listed in Appendix 6.
All responses received were considered by the steering group who subsequently submitted
to the parish council together with advice upon whether they should result in changes to
the plan.
Appendix 7 comprises the Schedule of Representations and responses to them.
Appendix 8 indicates the changes proposed.
4.11 Additional Consultation in relation to Shirlheath and Cobnash September 2015
Following the examination of Herefordshire Core Strategy, modifications to that plan were
proposed which indicated a preference for boundaries to be defined for settlements in
addition to removing the requirement for new housing provision within those settlements
listed in its table 4.21 to be restricted to local needs only. Consequently the broad policy
proposed for Shirlheath in the draft Kingsland Neighbourhood Plan, which looked to release
land for around 7 dwellings according to a list of criteria but in undefined locations, was
potentially in conflict with the need to define where development should take place.
Similarly a broad policy restricting housing to local needs only in Cobnash no longer met the
modified Core Strategy approach. Kingsland Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group therefore
reviewed its approach to the two settlements and decided to present options as possible
changes to the planning approach to the two settlements.
With regard to Shirlheath, it was proposed to seek a similar number of new dwellings to
that originally advocated but to add certainty about where they should be located either
through defining a built up frontage or a development boundary within which development
might take place.
For Cobnash similar options were presented but with an additional one that would provide
for no further development although not restrict any exception scheme for affordable
housing should a need be identified. The original Core Strategy approach for Cobnash was
based upon proportional growth which would have indicated around 4 dwellings.
The consultation took place through an exhibition held in St Michaelâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and All Angels
Church, Kingsland on Friday 4th September (5.00pm â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 7.00pm) and Saturday 5th
Kingsland Neighbourhood Development Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Consultation Statement (November 2015)

Page 12

September (10.00am – 12.00pm). All residents of the parish received a note publicising the
event, and it was also publicised on posters and in the parish newsletter and website.
Comment sheets were provided to be filled in on the day or returned within 7 days. The
comment sheet was also available through the website.
Appendix 9 shows the results in terms of preference for the options together with an
analysis of comments also submitted.
The Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group considered the responses received at its meeting
on 7th September and agreed that development boundaries could be provided for the two
settlements although agreed to variations to take into account concerns expressed. These
have resulted in the boundaries shown in the submitted plan.

Additional Consultation in relation to Shirlheath and Cobnash held at St Michael’s and All Angels
Church Kingsland on September 4th & 5th 2015

5. Kingslandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Neighbourhood Plan Communications and Publicity
5.1 All events, consultation activity
and committee meetings have been
advertised in advance on the parish
website, in the parish newsletter,
and on the village and Parish Council
notice boards. See Fig.2
5.2 All meetings have been
advertised as open to the community
and indeed, for some committee
meetings, observers have attended.
They have been free to speak.
5.3 A contact address has been
added to each piece of publicity with
an invitation for comments. These
have been few but have been
discussed at the meeting after they
were received and a response
agreed.

5.5 On-line Media: KNDP – Website, Twitter and Facebook
Information about the Neighbourhood Plan has been communicated via the community
website www.kingslandlife.com, which is a well established website for the parish.
There are a series of website pages under a Neighbourhood Plan heading covering
general information and latest news, steering group details, all agendas and minutes as
well as background information on neighbourhood planning.
(http://kingslandlife.com/index.php/kingsland-parish-neighbourhood-plan/)

Extra pages were added as necessary e.g. for the Regulation 14 Community Consultation
where the summary, draft plan, response form and evidence base could be directly
accessed. The Neighbourhood Plan events and meetings are also publicised in the
‘Village Diary’ and via the ‘Latest News’ feed. The Neighbourhood Plan pages are updated
regularly.
Events, meetings and news are also promoted via the KingslandLife Twitter feed which
has over 900 followers (https://twitter.com/KingslandLife) as well as via its newer
Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/KingslandLife ).
In addition to the above the Neighbourhood Plan also has its own Twitter feed
https://twitter.com/KingslandNP and Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/KingslandNeighbourhoodPlan where events and meetings
and other information are publicised and conversations with residents take place.

5.6 Dropbox
A Dropbox account was used by the KNDP Steering Group to store all documentation
related to the KNDP, including working documents and items of a confidential nature. The
public had access to the key consultation and information documents stored in Dropbox via
links stored in the Evidence Base which was published for the Regulation 14 consultation on
the Neighbourhood Plan pages of the KingslandLife website.'

6. Regulation 14 Representations Schedule
There were 38 representations from the community. These can be viewed at:
Schedule 1 of Appendix 7
The most frequently raised issue was connected to a lack of specific sites being identified to
ensure the target levels of growth. The response, laid out in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.4 of the
Neighbourhood Plan, was to set out in greater detail the assessment of housing needed,
along with the level of current commitments, the provision for windfall development in the
countryside and the level of development that might result from proposals in the plan
covering the three settlements. This indicated the target would be exceeded and potentially
by a significant amount.
There were 10 representations from stakeholders which can be viewed at: Schedule 2 of
Appendix 7
Stakeholders contributed 40 comments of which 14 were partially or wholly accepted. Just
over half of the itemised comments were from Herefordshire Council (22) of which, half
were partially or wholly accepted. Other stakeholder contributors were English Heritage,
Welsh Water, West Mercia Constabulary, Natural England, The Coal Authority, Office of Rail
Regulation, Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service, Sport England, Herefordshire
Council, Homes and Communities Agency.

7. Conclusions
As an overriding principle in formulating the Kingsland Neighbourhood Development
Plan the KNDP Steering Group, and the Parish Plan Steering Group before it, have
worked assiduously to consult with, and reflect the views of, the whole community and
other stakeholders,
Both steering groups were fortunate to have, as one of their local community members,
a freelance qualitative market research professional who oversaw the impartiality and
reach of the various consultations.
The steering group held widely differing views on various KNDP policies which broadly
reflected the range of views of the wider Kingsland parish population and other
stakeholders. The group protocol was to reflect these views as fairly as possible, based
upon robust evidence. To this end the steering group remained entirely impartial
throughout when developing the plan.
The community has been consulted individually, and via many different communication
routes over an extended period and has been given every encouragement and
opportunity to attend meetings and reply to, or comment upon the plan at every stage.
Conversations within the steering group regarding the different groups and how to
reach them were extensive, including several low-key approaches to encourage
participation of minority groups within this relatively small community. This included
offers to provide drivers where required. The effort expended to include everyone
regardless of age, gender, ability, location or other distinguishing differences was not
necessarily always rewarded with the levels of engagement hoped for, but overall it did
result in a good cross-section of the community and stakeholders taking part. This was
best exemplified by the 51% of the population over the age of 11 and 57% of
households returning the detailed parish plan survey, and over 20% of the population
attending the Neighbourhood Plan map-based events.
As a result the Steering Group are confident that this Consultation Statement
demonstrates the robust nature of the KNDP in being a true reflection of the community
wishes of Kingsland parish.

Flowers to make Kingsland pretty
Tree House (with sun and moon) (with garden) (on village green) x8
Automated rubbish bins by park and school (button to keep out wasps) x4
Swings (and ladder and snake), (Area with swings please) (in park) x3
Larger car park for school with no holes x2
Multi coloured bins for various purposes
Swing, slide and seesaw at school
20 miles per hour outside school

Other wishes from conversations during assembly included:
 Several who would like to see a swimming pool,
 Some who don’t want to change anything
 A few who wanted safer and more pathways
Various miscellaneous conversations with older young people (11-20) indicate
that:









A meeting place or youth club is their major need
They would also like to see better transport links
Several would like a playground for older children
More choice of sweets in the shop
Bus shelter needed
Nowhere to rent if young and single (sofa surfing too much)
Need info point for jobs for young people
Post jobs online
 Would like a take away chips van

Appendix 2:
Letter to Shirlheath Residents seeking volunteers to join the Steering Group and
help with NDP Events.
18.4.14
Dear Shirlheath Resident
You may be aware that a voluntary group attached to Kingsland Parish Council is producing a
Neighbourhood Plan for the parish which will influence where and what sort of housing will be
built in the parish until 2030. It is a crucial exercise as (unlike the Parish Plan), it will have legal
weight when planners make decisions on planning applications and will help determine how our
parish will look in the future. It is also an enormous job!!
The reason we’re writing to those of you in Shirlheath in particular is that Herefordshire Council’s
new Core Strategy (which says how many houses will be built and where), has implications for
Shirlheath (as defined by Herefordshire Council by the map on the back of this letter).
For the first time Shirlheath will be designated as a SEPARATE settlement within Kingsland
Parish, and, like Kingsland village, will have a requirement to allow building of a specified
number of houses from now until 2030. The designated figure is 14% of current numbers which
means an additional 7 (on the basis that Herefordshire Council has assessed there to be 50
dwellings in Shirlheath at the moment). However, there is also an issue arising at the moment in
that, because Herefordshire has not yet adopted the Core Strategy, until we have the
Neighbourhood Plan in place settlements like Kingsland and Shirlheath are open to speculative
planning applications by developers. Speed is therefore of the essence!
We therefore want to make sure that residents of Shirlheath have input into the Neighbourhood
Plan and that your views on where and what type of houses you would like to be built are taken
into account.
Are you willing to volunteer to come and sit on the Steering Group to ensure Shirlheath residents’
voice is heard? Can you come and help at events and village consultations or be a point of contact
to help deliver leaflets or put up posters in Shirlheath? You don’t need any qualifications or need to
know anything about planning – it’s time, hands and your views we need.
If you can help on any of the above or would just like some more information please call
Patricia Pothecary on 01568 708597, or you can e-mail
KingslandNeighbourhoodPlan@gmail.com
There is a lot of information already on the Neighbourhood Plan page on the KingslandLife
website (www.kingslandlife.com) as well as on Herefordshire Council’s website (under Planning/
Neighbourhood Planning or under Planning/Core Strategy, plus links to these on the
KingslandLife website). We are also on Twitter as @KingslandNP and we have a Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/KingslandNeighbourhoodPlan.
We hope you will be able to participate. Many thanks for your time reading this and we look
forward to hearing from you!
Kingsland Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group

Neighbourhood Plan Land Use for Kingsland Parish
Overall Vision
Protect and enhance the rural nature of the parish, where all groups and
ages can thrive and develop in a sustainable way
Objectives
Objective one:
Provide sufficient housing to meet the future needs of the community, in terms of numbers
and type, based upon robust evidence.
Objective two:
Ensure that new and existing business and commerce, including tourism, beneficial to the
economic health of the parish, can grow and is in scale with and sensitive to the rural
character of the parish.
Objective three:
Ensure all infrastructure including services, facilities and amenities are retained and
developed in line with the current needs and future growth of the community.
(such as pavements, paths, parking, traffic management, playgrounds, flood defense, sewerage and
community buildings)
Objective four:
Ensure that all development is based upon sound environmental sustainability principles
including energy sourcing and conservation, water and sewerage management, waste
minimization, wildlife conservation and habitat protection.
Objective five:
Ensure that the visual effect of all development preserves and enhances the traditional character of the
parish and protects our landscape and historic environment.

Criteria for development
All options to include the following criteria: (mainly from Parish Plan)


Ensure that new build housing is designed to be sympathetically in keeping with the
area.



To ensure that there is a mix of size and tenure types in all new housing to cater for
residents differing and changing needs.



Use local craftsmen and local and natural materials where possible and practical.



Maximize the use of renewable energy, energy saving and environmentally friendly
design to keep the carbon footprint to a minimum.



Ensure that parking, flooding, sewerage, pavement and traffic issues, resulting from
any new build, are fully and satisfactorily considered before planning is agreed.

Ensure any development includes green spaces and corridors to protect and enhance
the rural character and biodiversity of the parish.

Development Planning options: (leading from the Parish Plan)
Kingsland Village
Option 1


Retain the current settlement boundary so that any development takes place within it
and ensure all development meets the criteria specified in the Neighbourhood Plan.

Option 2


Redraw the current settlement boundary by choosing one of the following:
a. Either widening the middle
b. Or extending at its edges
c. A mix of both

Option 3


Redraw the settlement boundary to protect important open spaces, views and areas of
important character.

Option 4


Have no settlement boundary and limit development to small projects in line with the
agreed criteria.

Shirlheath
Option 1 – To allow small scale development, that meets the agreed criteria and objectives
set out in the Neighbourhood Plan for Kingsland Parish.

Option 2 – To identify specific sites for small-scale development which must meet the
agreed criteria and objectives set out in the Neighbourhood Plan for Kingsland Parish.
Kingsland Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation Statement (November 2015)

Page 22

Cobnash and Mortimer's Cross
These areas are defined in the core strategy as allowing development as follows “proportional
housing growth will be restricted to smaller market housing (or affordable housing) which
meets the needs of people with local connections, whom would not otherwise be able to live
in their area” (Herefordshire Council Core Strategy Pre Submission Publication July 13: Place
Shaping section)
Proposal for Cobnash and Mortimer’s Cross
Beside meeting the rules laid down in the Core Strategy, all new development must also meet
the Vision, Objectives and Criteria set out in the Neighbourhood Plan for Kingsland parish.
The Core Strategy sets out specific rules for these areas as follows…
‘....proportional residential growth will be limited to the provision of smaller market housing,
where the residential development proposal satisfies criteria 1 – 5 (of policy RS2) and:
6. Through the submission of appropriate evidence to demonstrate the development
meets an identified local housing need. Residential developments will be considered
to contribute towards meeting an identified need, where it will provide accommodation for any
of the following:
 Existing residents of the parish requiring separate accommodation;
 Persons who have current and long standing family links (immediate family only e.g.
parent, sibling or adult child) with the parish;
 Grandparents, grandchildren, aunts and uncles will be included only where the council
considers it necessary for the applicant to be accommodated within the Parish in order
to provide or receive medical or social support to or from a relative;
 Persons with permanent full time or main employment based within the parish.
7. The dwelling size is limited to a net internal floor area of 80 sq m (1 or 2 bedroom
house) or 90 sq m (3 bedroom house) or 100 sq m (4 bedroom house). Only where
medical needs necessitate the provision of specific facilities will any resulting
additional floor space requirements be considered;
8. The plot size is limited to a maximum area of 350 sq m unless site characteristics or
Draft Core Strategy Version for Cabinet July 2013 105 configuration render this impractical.
Permission granted in these cases will be subject to planning obligations that safeguard
occupation of the development for identified local housing needs and will continue to do so in
perpetuity. To achieve this policy, planning permissions will be subject to a condition
removing permitted development rights for the erection of any extension or detached
buildings within the curtilage and a condition restricting the conversion of an ancillary garage
in to habitable accommodation. Applications for such developments in variation of these
conditions will only be approved in exceptional circumstances. Proposals for affordable
housing in the villages identified in Figure 4.22 will also be supported where the development
is in line with criteria 1 to 4 of Policy H2.’ (Herefordshire Council Core Strategy Pre

Analysis:
Option 2 preferred for Shirlheath by a wide margin
Option 3 preferred for Kingsland by a wide margin
Option 1 was the second most popular in Kingsland
Kingsland event results consistent across both events
Shirlheath event results showed that businesses and groups preferred option 1 which is
opposite to the community preferences
The business and community groups event had 25 attendees representing 11
businesses, four community groups, one church, Kingsland School, Kingsland preSchool, our local councillor and one private citizen

The Kingsland Neighbourhood Development Plan (KNDP) is based upon criteria rather than a
call for land or identification of specific sites for development. As a result the following report
does not usually identify sites discussed.
With this in mind, the steering group undertook a series of walks to ensure that the policies in
the KNDP were achievable. In particular to see whether the current settlement boundary,
which is about a mile in length, would be capable of accepting the development required by
Herefordshire’s Core Strategy and whether the exceptions element of any KNDP policy would
allow for village amenities and services to expand as required. As the walks only covered part
of the sites under review, discussion ranged widely and included other parish areas familiar to
everyone.

Walk in village to look at spaces for building

16th August 2014
Present: Jackie Markham Walk Leader; Rodney Smallwood Chairman; Chris Southgate Vice
Chairman; Sarah Hanson Vice Chairman and planning specialist; Patricia Pothecary Secretary;
Sally Deakin Communications Secretary; David Thompson; Rick Noordegraf.
This walk looked at the centre section of Kingsland village in and around the settlement
boundary including some of the SHLAA sites.
 The walk discussed some sites, sufficiently close to the church and school, which may
possibly accommodate a new pre-school building. These various sites were adjacent to,
but not within, the settlement boundary
 Some sites with potential for new dwellings, within the settlement boundary, were also
observed
 Sites with potential for additional car parking, within and adjacent to the settlement
boundary were also discussed
 Possible spaces for an older children’s playground were considered in various locations.
It was recognised that all sites discussed and those not seen would be dependent upon
owners coming forward with land to offer.
All sites had advantages and disadvantages in terms of impact upon surrounding residents and
conservation area status. Subsequently other sites within the settlement boundary with
potential for additional dwellings have been discussed making it evident that there is sufficient
room for growth in line with the redrawn settlement boundary.

Walk at Shirlheath

4 September 2014
Present:
Jackie Markham Walk leader; Sarah Hanson Vice chairman and planning specialist;
Patricia Pothecary KNP secretary; Denise Cullimore Resident of Shirlheath and local
businesswoman.
The walk went along the lane towards Street, identifying potential for industrial expansion as
well as housing.
The walk continued along Street lane, looking at the surrounding fields, then left along a green
lane back on to the main road. Areas not visited, but familiar to the group, were discussed.
There is perhaps potential in several of the places observed for some small-scale development
but many appeared to have drawbacks from industrial noise or draining issues.
Kingsland Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation Statement (November 2015)

Page 25

Throughout the area there are small potential plots on brownfield sites or in fields adjacent to
individual houses with the capacity to accommodate the 14% target increase in dwellings
outlined in Herefordshire’s Core Strategy. There is no evident centre to enable a settlement
boundary to be fixed as dwellings are scattered throughout.
Traffic on the main A4110 road was considered to be dangerously fast, confirming comments
in the June consultation and the Parish Plan consultation and as such appears to be less
suitable for new housing development. There is no safe crossing point, speed limit, bus stop,
footway or street lighting along the main road and no community facilities, meeting place,
shops or pubs of any sort in any part of Shirlheath Settlement. It is difficult to envisage a more
unsuitable location for village expansion and it was felt by the walking group that increased
infrastructure should accompany new development.

Walk through Kingsland Village to look at valued Green Spaces and
Street Scenes

23 September 2014
Present
Jackie Markham Walk leader; Patricia Pothecary Secretary; Sebastian Bowen Local Councillor;
Merry Albright; Robin Fletcher; Rick Noordegraf
The walk began in Kingsland Village centre at the church. It then went across the glebe land
past the Motte and Bailey Castle Ancient Monument, and on to the village hall and playing
fields. The group then turned left over the public footpaths, behind the fire station, in the
fields leading to West Town Court.
The Millennium Green, churchyard, glebe land containing the Motte and Bailey and playing
fields by the village hall were all seen as suitable to be protected and designated as Local
Green Space as defined in the National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 76-78. All of
this land has restrictions of one sort or another with regard to development.
It was agreed that the area in front of Kingsleane had matured into an attractive green space
in the village.
The walk across public footpaths towards West Town Court highlighted the need for more
footways (pavements) so that residents from West Town Court can reach the village safely
and easily without recourse to a car. It also identified a clear, traditional separation by
farmland, between the main village and West Town Court. This is a favourite area, enjoyed by
walkers and their dogs.
The walk continued back towards the village and ended at the Corners Inn. It was agreed that
certain village streetscapes, in particular the cross roads where The Croase, the Corners Inn,
The Bell House, Park House and the Poor House are situated, is considered iconic in terms of
Kingsland Village character, and it was felt should not be developed. It was noted throughout
the walk that mature hedges in Kingsland Village add considerably to the street scene and it’s
traditional rural character.

Schedule 1: Community Representations and Response
Respondent
Identification
Number
1

Section/ Policy
Number
Whole Plan

Support/ Object/
Comment/Recommend
change
Comment

Policy KNDP4
and Meeting
Housing Needs

Comment

Policies KNDP6
and KNDP8

Comment

Comment

2

Policy KNDP9
and supporting
statement
Whole Plan

3

Whole Plan

Comment

Policy KNDP8

Comment

Comment

Comment

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)

Proposed Change
Number

Satisfied with plan.
Noted
Endorse retaining rural feel the idea through allowing small areas of housing (up to a dozen or so). Should not allow
a large number of houses ‘plonked’ in a greenfield site by a developer.
Endorsement of policy approach to development and retaining character noted

No change

Page 24 (2f) aims to maintain a clear separation between the village and West Town but at odds with p29c which
states new development should be connected to village. However you may feel this does not apply in retrospect.
West Town properties not connected to village by pavement. Danger for pedestrians walking to the village
particularly on the A4110 and past the Fire Station.
Criterion in KNDP6 relates to preserving the character and appearance of conservation area identified through
appraisal through avoiding development that would lead to the two areas coalescing. The criterion in KNDP8 relates
to infrastructure required in association with new development for safety and to promote walking.
Endorse ensuring sewage capability is satisfied before additional building puts more pressure on the existing
facilities, particularly in an area susceptible to flooding
Endorsement of policy noted
The plan is well constructed and written. Recommendations have been meticulously researched, using the Parish
Plan, as well as the more recent meetings on the Neighbourhood Plan itself. The evidence base is significant,
weighty and supports all recommendations. . The recommendations are wholly relevant and fully representative of
the needs of the Parish. Sincere congratulations to those undertaking such a complex and demanding task and
producing such a first rate document.
Comments welcomed and noted
Plan clearly identifies the priorities of the local community. Very happy overall with the plan.
Comment welcomed and noted
Road safety measure should be implemented, e.g. on the outskirts of the village on North Road going towards the
Luctonian Rugby Club. Cars travel fast down this stretch of North Road, dangerously above the speed limit.
Policy KNDP8 provides the basis for discussions with Herefordshire Council to address pedestrian safety. Indication
of where a potential safety problem exists is welcome
Additional street lighting needed further beyond its current location on North Road.
The issue of additional street lighting receiv3es different views in that some residents feel this creates an urban feel
to a rural village while others consider it necessary for highway safety. The approach taken in Policy KNDP8 relates
to new development being planned and located so that it does not increase pressure for further street lighting. It

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
does not restrict the provision of such lighting where it is already necessary for safety reasons. This would be a
matter for Herefordshire Council as Highway authority.
Support idea of a new village shop and/or café, and retaining our village post office as being at the heart of a village
community, vital resources for the social life of the village.
The Neighbourhood Plan provides the basis for planning decisions and in relation to local services promotes
appropriate measures that will assist their viability wherever possible. In addition Kingsland parish Council has
other measures it might pursue separate to the Neighbourhood Plan
Satisfied
Noted
On the map the Church and Millennium Green appear INSIDE the settlement boundary
There is no reason why these should not be within the settlement boundary. However the millennium green,
together with other areas are indicated as ‘Local Green Space’ in Policy KNDP13 and are protected from
development as a consequence. These should be shown as such on the map as protected by this designation.
Satisfied with plan but with reservations
Noted
The whole exercise could come to nothing if proposed Boarsfield development is allowed! Ref p 42 6.9
At the time of responding Herefordshire Council has yet to determine the application for housing development at
Boarsfield. Para 6.9 refers to how affordable housing might be provided should an additional need be identified
over the plan period given the absence of site allocations. The approach utilising ‘exception sites’ has already been
used to provide affordable housing for the village and this mechanism is supported by both the NPPF and
Herefordshire Core Strategy.
Why is settlement boundary map pg16 including Millennium Green and Church but not Kingsleane?
Kingsleane is outside of the settlement boundary and beyond the built uip area of Kingsland Village and hence
contrary to Herefordshire Core Strategy Policy RA2. It is separated from the village by an affordable housing
exception site, which by definition is a site that did not fall within the settlement boundary such that it would have
been granted planning permission. To include the exception site would potentially affect the availability of
affordable housing for the village in that the requirement for it to remain affordable ‘in perpetuity’ could be more
easily challenged.
Congratulations to all concerned. You will have the majority of the village’s heartfelt thanks if you can make the
plan watertight
Noted
Waste of money
Noted
Where is the Grade 3 agricultural land around the village? Can land designation be identified on a map?
The grades of agricultural land are a classification and not a designation. It is available through the Natural England
website and a relevant extract included in the Neighbourhood Plan evidence base. It is not usual to include such
information within a neighbourhood plan. However it is acknowledged through the point raised that a change is
necessary to better reflect the NPPF requirements.

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
Historic features Iron Age settlement on land near Day House Farm isn't included
The Historic Environment Map is an extract of data from Herefordshire Historic Environment Record (HER) at the
time the draft plan was published. It is understood this contains all data held by Herefordshire Council within that
record. If it is felt some data is missing then it would be worthwhile approaching Herefordshire Council upon the
issue. The HER is used to identify whether and if so what intervention is necessary to ensure the historic
environment is protected appropriately.
How much can Kingsland expect from the Infrastructure Levy? It needs to do a great deal.
This is unknown and will depend upon when Herefordshire Council introduces the levy, what the rate is and the
forms of development it will affect. Given the level of housing already committed within the parish it is
acknowledged the amount is likely to be limited. This policy simply indicates that it is proposed that whatever
amount is received the Parish Council will use it to meet the essential needs of the community.
This should also include orchards/orchard trees
Welcome suggestion although no need to distinguish between trees and individual orchard trees.
It is a good plan, comprehensive and exciting
Noted
Worried about the social impact of large scale developments that would place a real strain on the community. This
excellent plan draws attention to our physical infrastructure, flood risk, sewerage processing etc. BUT our school is
almost full and our pre-school needs new, better facilities Development should take place in stages.
Noted - although it is expected that more houses will result from this plan than the target set by Herefordshire Core
Strategy, there are no large scale proposals for housing.
Could a pre-school with ample parking be included, or buses, or a play area?
All the items mentioned require significant resources to address and the money for them has not been identified.
However the Plan identifies the need for a number of these facilities and indicates the criteria against which any
proposal for them should be judged. The issues of parking and public transport are referred to in Policy KNDP8 but
are matters that need to be addressed in association with Herefordshire Council. Should resources be available or
proposals be advanced by the private sector then they would be supported where they meet the relevant criteria.
Satisfied with the plan
Noted
Support – settlement boundary should be strictly adhered to; there should be no development on grade 1, 2 and
possibly grade 3 agricultural land which should be retained for food production;
Noted – the policy covers the issue of agricultural land although little if any land of lower than grade 3 is present.
The settlement boundary for Kingsland, and if agreed those for other settlements in the parish, will be the basis for
determining planning applications for new dwellings with some limited exceptions.
Large scale residential development would change the whole character and infrastructure of the village and
conservation area. Design criteria to exclude UPVC windows and include only bespoke designs.
Sites where large scale development might take place are not proposed in this plan and criteria are set out to
ensure local character and distinctiveness is maintained. It is not proposed to ask Herefordshire Council to restrict
the use of UPVC windows in general within the conservation area. Protection is given to Listed Buildings through
their consent regime to refuse these where appropriate.

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
Concerned about discharge from the sewage treatment works into the Pinsley Brook which is contravening
discharge levels for phosphates and damaging important fish and other species.
It is acknowledged that the STW is currently at or near capacity. The intention of this policy is to restrict
development that would result in its capacity being exceeded and developers will need to show this will not
adversely affect capacity/discharge. The level of development proposed is not considered such as to exceed the
current capacity. However Welsh Water may bring forward proposals for upgrading the works if and when
necessary but within its Asset Management Programme. Should additional development lead to an excess then
they have the potential to bring forward works in advance of Welsh Water through making financial contributions.
New homes should use local architects and trades people and designed in sympathy with the character of the
conservation area and heritage, utilising small infill developments of no more than 10 units and phased over a
number of years. There should be no large scale housebuilding. Development should be restricted to replacement
dwellings or development within the defined village envelope confirmed and requested in the parish plan and
KNDP consultations.
The use of local trades’ people can be encouraged but not stipulated as a requirement. Given the level of
outstanding commitments the housing policies do not make land allocations but promote housing upon individual
and small plots within a settlement boundary for Kingsland. Such boundaries are now proposed for Shirlheath and
Cobnash.
Housing in Kingsland should meet local needs only and not exceed the 14% growth requested by Herefordshire
Council. There is no evidence that need will exceed this level.
In order to comply with the NPPF and Herefordshire Core Strategy the plan must provide positively for the housing
target level which is considered a minimum. It is considered this has been achieved in ways acceptable to the wider
community. Local need can only be one component of the target.
Development should ensure there are adequate pre-school and other facilities, workshops, studios, retail units,
community buildings and facilities, and the doctor’s surgery accommodation.
This policy seeks to enable appropriate facilities to be provided subject to certain safeguards. Developer
contributions through a range of means may assist in maintaining and expanding some facilities. Consultation on
the plan has been undertaken with statutory and other service providers. It is hoped to enable the facilities
included in this policy through resources that may be made available or proposals advanced by the private sector.
Request inclusion of our land at Kingsland as a site for housing. Application for it to be included in the Core Strategy
was made previously. The site is within the village with houses all around it and it does not flood.
Herefordshire Council has set a target of 65 houses to be built over the period 2011 to 2031 within the parish as a
whole. Most of this should be within or adjacent to the built up areas of its three settlements – Kingsland,
Shirlheath and Cobnash. Some 47 dwellings have either been built or received planning permission since 2011.
Some development will still take place outside of the settlements and a modest allowance of 12 – 17 rural windfall
dwellings has been estimated based on past trends. Provision for the limited additional requirement has been
made through individual and small housing plots within the three settlements that will ensure the housing target is
met and exceeded to some degree. This approach is in accordance with the wishes of the local community
expressed on a number of occasions in relation to both the Parish Plan and this Neighbourhood Plan. There is no
need for further housing land to be made available at this time.
Satisfied with plan as giving a clear direction of where the future of Kingsland's new development should go.

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
Noted
There is inadequate provision for housing in Kingsland (village). A plan showing the locations of all the housing sites
visited within and outside the settlement boundary in relation to the locations of new housing sites in Kingsland
should be provided in the consultation process so that Kingsland residents can make informed decisions now based
on where these houses could be developed and whether the sites suggested are indeed available and deliverable.
Site allocations need to be shown now if proposed housing numbers need to be increased as a result of any
amendments to the Core Strategy (post examination). These sites need to be available and deliverable. The only
way to confirm this is to consult the relevant landowners/property owners now so that they can be identified and
included within the draft plan. Figures used to indicate housing commitments are incorrect. Kingsland needs to
grow steadily to maintain its sustainability. Surely it is better to have several smaller developments rather than one
or two larger developments which will urbanise the village.
The assessment of housing targets and way in which they might be provided for has changed as a consequence of
proposed modifications to Herefordshire Core Strategy. As a consequence the approach to providing the required
target has been reviewed. A Housing Needs Assessment paper has been produced in the light of the proposed
modifications and is included in the evidence base.

Proposed Change
Number
No change

Herefordshire Council has set a target of 65 houses to be built over the period 2011 to 2031 within the parish as a
whole. Most of this should be within or adjacent to the built up areas of its three settlements – Kingsland,
Shirlheath and Cobnash. Some 47 dwellings have either been built or received planning permission since 2011.
Some development will still take place outside of the settlements and a modest allowance of 12 – 17 rural windfall
dwellings has been estimated based on past trends. This is consistent with Herefordshire Council’s proportional
allowance for the County as a whole despite trend evidence that this is has been greater within the parish.
Provision for the limited additional requirement has been made through individual and small housing plots within
the three settlements that will ensure the housing target is met and exceeded to some degree. This approach is in
accordance with the wishes of the local community expressed on a number of occasions in relation to both the
Parish Plan and this Neighbourhood Plan. There is no need for further housing land to be made available at this
time.
It remains the case that no sites were needed outside of settlement boundaries defined for the parish’s three
settlements and therefore a plan showing potential housing allocation options was and remains unnecessary. The
level of potential housing sites arising from individual sites and small plots within settlement boundaries is
significantly beyond the additional dwellings needed and it is reasonable to assume that even should a small
proportion of these come forward the target will be met and exceeded. The approach based upon small numbers of
individual sites and small plots should assist in promoting steady growth.
Consultation arrangements with the community have been extensive and set out in a statement prepared in
accordance with requirements. There was no specific ‘call for sites’ in view of the level of commitments that
already existed that substantially met the level of development required by Herefordshire Core Strategy and the
extent to which the community felt should be accommodated.

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
How does KNP intend to meet and balance the housing needs of all the different groups within the community as
they change over time when there are already sufficient commitments for new development? Where is the
evidence that this can be achieved? Affordable housing has been identified as a need, where have KNP
allowed/considered an allocation for this? No affordable housing will be available at Croftmead now due to the
revised plans submitted. How is it propose to address the potential loss of the financial contributions and the loss
of affordable housing as it is unlikely that a site sufficiently big enough to trigger the provision of affordable housing
and 106 financial contributions will be possible within the existing settlement area.
For the dwellings granted planning permission Herefordshire Council will have considered this requirement as a
consequence of its policies through the permissions it has already granted which primarily addresses market
housing. With regard to the outstanding needs currently the level of need for affordable housing for local people is
understood to be small and can be met through the affordable housing provision within recent planning
permissions. Should any further affordable housing be needed it can be accommodated through Herefordshire Core
Strategy policy H2 which it is unnecessary to duplicate. However it may be useful to make this point clearer in para
6.9.
The issue of contributions to affordable housing within developments is fluid having changed once again back to
the original NPPF approach. Even should it change again, and should there be further need for affordable housing
Core Strategy policy H2 would still be a useful approach especially given that it can provide cross subsidy from an
element of market housing.
How does the plan strike a balance between providing housing and retaining a rural community, an attractive place
to live and visit, a sustainable rural lifestyle away from larger urban environment? Where is the plan showing the
exact location of land to be ‘protected’ that will maintain and enhance the rural character and local distinctiveness
within the parish, the settings and amenity within the settlements, particularly in relation to the preservation of the
Kingsland Conservation Area and its associated character, landscape and views. Similarly if it is intended to restrict
development on any land or any village street scenes in Kingsland, these areas need to be shown.
There is considered to be no inconsistency between the approach to Kingsland village’s environment and the
provision of housing to meet the required target. The housing target can be met through enabling housing
development within the parish’s three settlements and this will easily accommodate the level outstanding and to
be found through small scale developments. Only very limited further development beyond notable commitments
is expected within Kingsland village core and this need not affect the character and appearance of the conservation
area, the village street scene or village character overall.

Proposed Change
Number
See proposed
changes No 35 and
38

See proposed
change No 57

Areas to be protected within Kingsland village as ‘Local Green Space’ are indicated in Policy KNDP 13. It is however
agreed that they should be shown on Kingsland Village Map. Policy KNDP 6 (2) identifies key settings within or
related to the village and these are setting issues relating to important buildings and the conservation area’s
character and appearance. They may not be inclusive of all such settings but indicate those of greatest significance.
The issue of significance must be addressed when any proposals are brought forward that might affect the
conservation area, any Listed Building or other heritage asset. The approach proposed supports national and Core
Strategy policy and indicates those features which are relevant to the neighbourhood plan area. Street scenes are
identified by virtue of the conservation area boundary.
Kingsland Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation Statement (November 2015)

Page 33

Respondent
Identification
Number

Section/ Policy
Number
Policy KNDP 6
(2) f

Support/ Object/
Comment/Recommend
change
Question

Policies KNDP4,
KNDP5, KNDP6,
KNDP13 and
KNDP14

Question/Comment

Para 2.6

Question

Policy KNDP2 d

Question

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
Why is there a need to protect a separation between West Town and Kingsland village when West Town is within the
Kingland village boundary? Does the separation include both sides of the Arbour Lane or the north side of the road
or the south side of the road?
The separation between Kingsland village and West Town was identified as part of the character of Kingsland
conservation area when it was first designated and a statement to that effect is included in its designation statement.
It forms a valuable green break in between areas of dwellings thereby avoiding giving the village an urban feel which
is what the respondent indicates as important. West Town is to our knowledge never been within Kingsland village
settlement boundary. The need for this policy to maintain this separation has become even more important now that
Herefordshire Council has granted planning permission which has reduced the gap between the two areas. It should
apply to both sides of the road.
How is it proposed to build on local heritage assets and to maintain the setting and surroundings which provide a
much valued leisure and tourist facility for the wider community and where is the evidence to prove that KNP will
achieve this? Concentrating development within the existing settlement boundary will exacerbate congestion
through the village. Roadside parking in village centre is already a problem both in working hours and in the evening.
Increasing the settlement boundary in a sensible and considerate manner will allow the core of the village to retain
its rural character whilst still allowing flexibility for much needed growth to sustand developing this area further will
destroy the rural characteristics of the village core itself and be significantly detrimental to the character of the
conservation area by depleting any valuable green breaks in between dwellings which will give the village an urban
feel. Is the main street of Kingsland not worthy of protecting its historic character?
A range of policies provide for safeguarding the parish’s heritage, including its main street. There are limited
development opportunities within the existing Kingsland village core and settlement boundary, which has not
changed significantly from that proposed in earlier development plans that also sought to maintain Kingsland’s
character and particularly its conservation area. In addition land for housing is proposed in other settlements within
the parish that would enable the housing target to be met and exceeded. Extending the area for development will
not address the parking problems within the village centre which is where facilities are located. Any new
development within the settlement boundary must be capable of accommodating off-street parking so if and
where any opportunities arise this will not exacerbate the current problem.
Brownfield or existing sites need to be shown on a plan. Which sites have been identified as brownfield or existing
sites. What is meant by ‘existing sites’? Are these properties/existing sites available?
Existing sites refers to those already available through planning permissions and individual sites and small plots
available within settlement boundaries/definitions. Where existing site with planning permissions meet criteria set
out in Planning Practice Guidance (5 or more dwellings or more than 0.25 hectares) they might usefully be shown.
The availability of potential small sites and those covered by the windfall allowance as provide through NPPF
cannot be should because they are too small. The approach to assessing provision for windfalls is set out in the
evidence base to Kingsland Neighbourhood Plan.
What is meant by ‘exceptional’ in terms of developent that should take place outside of the settlement boundary?
Herefordshire Core Strategy Policy RA3 and other policies defined within it set out the exceptions that relate to
development in the countryside outside of allocated sites, settlement boundaries or other settlement definitions.
They include agricultural and forestry dwellings, rural building conversions, dwellings associated with rural

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
enterprises, replacement dwellings, innovative design, and rural exception affordable housing sites. An
improvement to the policy may assist clarify by referring to Herefordshire Core Strategy RA3.
A plan should be provided to show the proposed location of all community buildings and facilities.
No specific proposals foe community facilities are put forward in this plan. The approach to accommodating such
facilities is a flexible one to enable sites to come forward as and when resources are available and provided they
meet certain safeguards. It is not a site specific policy because none have been identified.
Agricultural land grades 1 and 2 which are proposed for protection should be shown on a map in the plan. It would
appear all possible sites for development may be classified as Grade 1 or 2 – therefore, if further development sites
are required outside the settlement boundary, where will the housing go?
The grades of agricultural land are a classification and not a designation. It is available through the Natural England
website and a relevant extract included in the Neighbourhood Plan evidence base. It is not usual to include such
information within a neighbourhood plan. For reasons explained above, the plan meets and exceeds the housing
target set out within Herefordshire Core Strategy for the parish and hence this policy approach remains valid for
then plan period. However it is acknowledged through the point raised that a change is necessary to better reflect
the NPPF requirements.
As per all representation 15 above

A plan showing all the sites considered both within and outside the settlement boundary (for Kingsland) should be
provided to enable residents to make a decision on whether sites are available and deliverable.
No sites were needed outside of Kingsland settlement boundary in order to achieve the original housing target and
this remains the case for the new parish target following changes to Herefordshire Core Strategy with the provision
of development opportunities within the parish’s three settlements. Therefore a plan showing potential housing
allocation options was and remains unnecessary. The level of potential housing arising from individual sites and
small plots within settlement boundaries is significantly beyond the additional dwellings needed and it is
reasonable to assume that even should a small proportion of these come forward the target will be met and
exceeded. The approach based upon small numbers of individual sites and small plots should assist in promoting
steady growth.
A plan should be provided to show the proposed location of all community buildings and facilities.
No specific proposals foe community facilities are put forward in this plan. The approach to accommodating such
facilities is a flexible one to enable sites to come forward as an when resources are available an provided they meet
certain safeguards. It is not s site specific policy because none have been identified.
Brownfield and existing sites should be shown.
Existing sites refers to those already available through planning permissions and individual sites and small plots
available within settlement boundaries/definitions. Where existing site with planning permissions meet criteria set
out in Planning Practice Guidance (5 or more dwellings or more than 0.25 hectares) they might usefully be shown.
The availability of potential small sites and those covered by the windfall allowance as provide through NPPF

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
cannot be should because they are too small. The approach to assessing provision for windfalls is set out in the
evidence base to Kingsland Neighbourhood Plan.
Agricultural land grades 1 and 2 to be protected from development should be shown on a map in the plan. It would
appear all possible sites for development may be classified as Grade 1 or 2 – therefore, if further development sites
are required outside the settlement boundary, where will the housing go?
The grades of agricultural land are a classification and not a designation. It is available through the Natural England
website and a relevant extract included in the Neighbourhood Plan evidence base. It is not usual to include such
information within a neighbourhood plan. For reasons explained above, the plan meets and exceeds the housing
target set out within Herefordshire Core Strategy for the parish and hence this policy approach remains valid for
then plan period. However it is acknowledged through the point raised that a change is necessary to better reflect
the NPPF requirements.
Other protected areas should also be shown on a plan including village street scenes.
A range of policies provide for safeguarding the parish’s heritage, including its main street. The approach is
generally a criteria based one which will now reflect an approach reflecting settings. This approach is fairly common
for conservation areas.
Where are the houses to go that may result from any increase in housing provision resulting from any amendments
to Herefordshire Core Strategy? The Plan should not be progressed until after Herefordshire Core Strategy has been
adopted.
The assessment of housing targets and way in which they might be provided for has changed as a consequence of
proposed modifications to Herefordshire Core Strategy. As a consequence the approach to providing the required
target has been reviewed. A Housing Needs Assessment paper has been produced in the light of the proposed
modifications and is included in the evidence base. The changes ensure limited development required to meet and
exceed the housing target set for the parish is met and exceeded through small sits within the parish’s three
settlements in accordance with the preference set in response to earlier consultations.
As per all representation 17 above

Not satisfied with the plan. There is insufficient evidence and research carried out to formalise the plan.
Restrictions on development outside of the settlement boundaries are short sighted for the sustainability of the
village
The plan has been prepared on the basis of Herefordshire Core Strategy, its evidence base and information
gathered for the parish where this is felt necessary. Some forms of development are permitted outside of
settlement boundaries both through Herefordshire Core Strategy and the neighbourhood Plan. Herefordshire Core
Strategy places emphasis upon defining settlement boundaries where possible in order to define where housing
development should take place other than a number of exceptions listed in its policy RA3. The plan provides for a
level of housing development in excess of the Herefordshire Core Strategy target for the parish
Not satisfied with the plan. Government is keen to allow communities to shape their environment through relaxed
neighbourhood planning rules. The whole Kingsland community has not been involved in the draft plan. Much of
what is proposed contradicts Government policies.

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
The Neighbourhood Plan has to comply with the provisions of both the NPPF (Government Policy) and
Herefordshire Core Strategy, it cannot have more relaxed rules, and is considered not to contradict Government
policies. Extensive consultation has been undertaken to inform the plan and this is set out in the Kingsland
Neighbourhood Plan Consultation Statement.
Not satisfied with the plan. Only allowing development within the settlement boundaries will not be sufficient for
the growing needs of the village. Development should be considered outside of the boundaries.
The plan provides for more than the required 14% housing growth required over the plan period 2011 to 2031.
Sufficient sites are available within the parish to provide for the principal housing needs and provision is available
to enable affordable housing outside of the settlement boundaries should a further need for this be identified.
Herefordshire Core Strategy places emphasis upon defining settlement boundaries where possible in order to
define where housing development should take place other than a number of exceptions listed in its policy RA3.
Not satisfied with the plan. Not enough research has been carried out for the plan, e.g. on housing.
The plan has been prepared on the basis of Herefordshire Core Strategy, its evidence base and information
gathered for the parish where this is felt necessary.
Not satisfied with the plan. There is inadequate confirmation of proposed development sites for housing,
community buildings, brownfield sites and village parking. Suitable development sites have not been fully explored
for growth outside of the settlement boundaries.
The plan provides for more than the required 14% housing growth required over the plan period 2011 to 2031.
Sufficient sites are available within the parish to provide for the principal housing needs and provision is available
to enable affordable housing outside of the settlement boundaries should a further need for this be identified. It
would enable community facilities to be provided should the need arise, subject to certain safeguards. It does not
restrict the redevelopment of brownfield sites. Policy KNDP8 would facilitate the provision of new parking in
association with Herefordshire Council should opportunities arise while also ensuring new development does not
make parking worse through requiring all new development to provide adequate off-street car parking
Plan provides useful and accurate analysis of present situation and makes sensible suggestions for future changes
Noted
Plan required to show areas for building and parking to be made available for viewing
It is agreed that maps need to be clearer. However no specific sites are being allocated for development given the
level of houses now required in the three settlements which can be accommodated through individual and small
plots. No specific site(s) is/are identified for parking.
More information is required about sites available within and outside the settlement boundary (for Kingsland),
including brownfield land
No sites were needed outside of Kingsland settlement boundary in order to achieve the original housing target and
this remains the case for the new parish target following changes to Herefordshire Core Strategy with the provision
of development opportunities within the parishâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s three settlements. Therefore a plan showing potential housing
allocation options was and remains unnecessary.
More information is needed about sites for community buildings, parking, etc.

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
No specific proposals foe community facilities are put forward in this plan. The approach to accommodating such
facilities is a flexible one to enable sites to come forward as and when resources are available an provided they
meet certain safeguards. It is not s site specific policy because none have been identified.
More information is needed about views and areas to be protected and the justification.
A range of policies provide for safeguarding the parish’s heritage, including its main street. The approach is
generally a criteria-based one which will now reflect an approach reflecting settings. This approach is fairly common
for conservation areas
There is insufficient information to show the housing numbers required can be accommodated and this should not
the minimum required.
The level of potential housing arising from individual sites and small plots within settlement boundaries is
significantly beyond the additional dwellings needed and it is reasonable to assume that even should a small
proportion of these come forward the target will be met and exceeded. The approach based upon small numbers of
individual sites and small plots should assist in promoting steady growth. Justification for the level of development
proposed is to be expanded within the plan.
As per all representation 26 above

Proposed Change
Number

See proposed
changes No 29

See proposed
changes Nos 36, 38,
39 and 41

As per all
representation 26
above

As per representation
26 above

As per all representation 26 above

As per all
representation 26
above

As per representation
26 above

As per all representation 26 above

As per all
representation 26
above

Comment

A thoroughly professional piece of work that may save Kingsland from opportunistic development
Noted
The Plan accurately reflects the wishes of the majority of the village (Kingsland) . Congratulations on an excellent
piece of work
Noted
As per all representation 26 above

No change

Support excellent piece of work
Noted
A significant effort has been made reflect the ideas of the majority of then parishioners
Noted

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
Considerable amount of work undertaken to achieve this stage. Hope it succeeds and has desired effect of
protecting the heritage of Kingsland
Noted
Need to be more flexible with the type of housing and total percentage of growth to allow for the growing needs of
a thriving village. Have already seen the closure of a play area, tea rooms, shop and pub. There is a need to
encourage a younger population and avoid the school from closing.
The plan together with existing commitments enables in excess of the proportion of housing required within the
parish. The plan attempts to balance a range of needs and requirements to ensure that the community is able to
grow while retaining its rural qualities. Changes are put forward to ensure each of the three settlements within the
parish is able to accommodate some development. However the approach in relation to Kingsland remains as
proposed in the draft Plan and still provides the potential for an excess of dwellings above the housing target over
the plan period.
The approach in not showing any specific sites for each housing type is not robust evidence. It is wrong to base
future housing requirements on sites that may come forward.
The outstanding housing requirement over and above existing commitments to meet the housing target is small
and can be more than accommodated through the potential sites that fall within definitions of areas for
development within the parish’s three settlements. Even a cautious assessment of future provision based upon
recent past trends in the windfall allowances for development in both rural areas and settlements indicate that a
notable excess is likely.
Would like to see ‘Affordable Housing’ reconsidered to include a wider variety of house types, sizes and tenures;
delivered through more innovative methods to meet specific and identified needs. Suggestions may include Alms
housing, family sized homes, live/work dwellings, self-build, shared housing/cohousing, community owned housing,
Affordable Sale/Rent (with 20% discount on market values) etc. We would expect for ‘Affordable Housing’ to be
only a small part of the development projections going forward; with market housing constituting the majority of
housing provision as reflected in the recent Housing Needs Survey and considering the number of conventional
Social units approved and in existence within Kingsland Parish
A mix of housing types and tenures is required through these policies. In view of the level of housing commitments
covered by existing planning permissions it is considered that these meet the needs of the parish for the
foreseeable future. However the plan recognises that the situation may change and Government policy is also
subject to possible further changes and consequently reliance will be placed upon Herefordshire policies H1 and
H2. These policies provide for low cost affordable and intermediate housing together with an element of market
housing. Reliance upon Core Strategy policy H2 might however be made explicit.
Wholeheartedly support the concept of Kingsland Parish as a tourist/visitor destination. Proposals that might
enhance or increase this ‘vision’ such as visitor facilities, hospitality based proposals, high quality overnight
accommodation, holiday lodges, retail opportunities, museums etc., would deliver significant benefits to the
community and parish.
Noted
There is some concern regarding large scale development within the parish and wonder if there may be some further
policy recommendations that might mitigate or prevent this type of scheme?

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
Potential sites within the settlement boundary without planning permission offer opportunities for small scale
development. Existing commitments in terms of land with planning permission vary in size.
Unsure what is meant by ‘improvements will be sought for the wellbeing of the whole community’? This may be open
to misinterpretation. Large schemes subject to s106 contributions delivering community funds, but smaller schemes
and individual projects might not be able to benefit ‘a whole community’.
The term is used within the context of NPPF paragraph 7 bullet 2 and sets the basis for community facilities such as
those listed in policy KNDP12. It is not a specific reference to funding sources through development.
Need to make provision for housing needs that may not be objectively assessed or identified by a Housing Needs
Survey – i.e. people that live somewhere else but may wish to move to Kingsland, changing family circumstances that
may arise in the future etc. Housing needs will change over the plan period. The NPPF acknowledges that housing
needs are wide and diverse and includes family homes, opportunities for those wishing to build their own home,
homes for service families, disabled or elderly, live/work dwellings, affordable housing etc.
NPPF paragraph 47 indicates that there should be an evidence base to objectively assess needs. Herefordshire
Council has produced this assessment for the period 2011-2013 and indicated a target for Kingsland and Shirlheath
which this neighbourhood plan seeks to meet. Core Strategy policies RA1 and RA2 are relevant. However the policy
reference and footnote recognise that needs will change over time.
Who will decide what employment is ‘appropriate’?
Herefordshire Council will determine planning applications in accordance with the Local Development Framework
having carried out consultations, including with Kingsland Parish Council where this is relevant. This Neighbourhood
Plan forms part of the Local Plan. This policy paragraph needs to be read in association with Policies KNDP16 and
KNDP17.
The ‘local need’ restrictions, size restrictions and resale restrictions placed upon market housing in Cobnash,
Mortimer’s Cross (and the other RA2 villages) in the Core Strategy are overly prescriptive and a barrier to delivery.
We would support an amendment to the RA2 restrictions to ensure that it is viable and practical for housing to be
delivered in these areas and yet remains ‘needs led’.
This matter raised is subject to a modification set out following the Public Examination of the Core Strategy. However
local need remains in Core Strategy Policy RA2 although the reference is not as specific as previously.
The plan indicates Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land should not be developed – can this be supported by evidence and
justified. Do you have a definition of ‘development’ in this specific context? We don’t disagree with the intention may
be more complex depending on the land and amount of land in question and who decides the grade.
NPPF paragraph 112 requires land of lesser agricultural value rather than that of higher quality is used where this is
possible. The agricultural land classification for land within the parish includes land of grade 3. The term
‘development’ in this context is that used by the Planning Acts. However it is acknowledged through the point raised
that a change is necessary to better reflect the NPPF requirements.

Have strong reservations and concerns regarding the retention of the (Kingsland) development boundary. It limits
the opportunity to deliver proportional growth. Terms such as ‘controlled’ or ‘limited’ infer that housing delivery is
to be restricted rather than facilitated. There is doubt that there is capacity within the existing boundary to
accommodate proportionate growth over the plan period as the remaining opportunities are severely limited and
dependent upon a small handful of landowners (including ourselves) bringing forward the land for development and
delivering the approval. Can the development boundary be relied upon to provide proportional and proactive
growth? The percentage growth is not to be used as a numerical target. By relying on DB you are potentially
preventing an exceptional scheme.
Settlement boundaries are promoted as the most appropriate tool for rural settlements within Herefordshire Core
Strategy. Together with proposals for other settlements within the parish Kingsland’s settlement boundary delivers
more houses than the target amount required by Herefordshire Core Strategy and has the community’s support.
Given the level of commitments and the small outstanding level of requirement for the 20 year plan period, it is
considered that the boundary achieves what is required. There is no evidence that those with land having planning
permissions do not intend to bring land forward at some stage during the plan period and previous windfall levels
suggest permissions are readily implemented. An open ended approach would not provide the certainty to the
community that is required. Exceptional schemes can come forward through Core Strategy policy RA3

No change

Define ‘small development’. A steer on this may be useful –an interpretation of ‘small’ would help us meet your
policies.
Previously the housing target for Shirlheath was 7 dwellings. With the proposed modifications to Herefordshire
Core Strategy the target level is to be accommodated across the parish. However it remains the case that
development within this settlement should provide somewhere in the region of this number. Furthermore the
emphasis on settlement boundaries is such that a revised approach is necessary.
Can KNDP improve/expand upon the Core Strategy policies? What happens if this policy changes in the CS after
inspection?
Modifications to Herefordshire Core Strategy policy RA2 have been made and it is proposed to alter the draft plan
to ensure compliance with the changed provisions. KNDP has to be consistent with Herefordshire Core Strategy and
it is proposed that it be adopted after the adoption of Herefordshire Core Strategy .
Is it possible to have the Settlement Boundary map much larger – possibly over two pages?
This is a reasonable request and it is the intention to enlarge the plan
This acknowledges that development proposals should be within or adjacent to the built environment, but does the
KNDP reflect this when the KNDP limits development to inside the development boundary only? We would suggest
that some areas adjacent to Kingsland DB could be acceptable for development without adverse impact
The requirement set out quoted from Herefordshire Core Strategy gives direction to neighbourhood plans upon how
they should provide sites to meet the housing targets. It does not mean that having identified a boundary sites can
be both within this and adjacent to it. The approach taken is based upon being able to provide at least sufficient
housing to meet the required target through an allowance for the exceptions set out in Herefordshire Core Strategy
RA2 and then by defining settlement boundaries/definitions. It has not proved necessary to extend the settlement
boundary for Kingsland.

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
Does the Parish Plan explicitly support limitation of new development within the settlement boundary only?
Yes - see Kingsland parish plan Objective 1.1b bullet 1 (page 11)
There are serious concerns that restricting development to within the Kingsland development boundary, even if sites
were available, viable and deliverable, does not represent a positive approach to facilitating sustainable
development, contrary to the NPPF and CS as it unreasonably restricts housing delivery.
The plan indicates there are opportunities for a significant number of dwellings in excess of the required parish
target. Sustainability at the local level needs to include effect on communities, the environment and the economy,
(including retaining food production) and not just in terms of housebuilding.
Largely support these and commend your vision. Sustainability is not just about ‘carbon footprint’ - although we
endorse the intention.
Noted
We support these policies except providing broadband is a homeowner prerogative and at the mercy of major
infrastructure providers not developers/landowners, and renewable energy infrastructure where it is better to
require higher design standards, insulation/airtightness/solar orientation/fabric first/energy demands rather than
promote renewables (such as solar panels).
The requirement is for a co-ordinated approach to reduce the carbon footprint. Energy conservation measures are
a requirement which is likely to be set through Building regulations at some stage in the future. Energy generation
might include solar panels or heat collection. It is the responsibility on all communities to contribute to renewable
and low carbon energy generation (NPPF para 97) and the opportunities for this are limited so housing
development should seek to make a contribution where possible. The requirement for broadband should be read
in association with policy KNDP11 which requires the infrastructure to accommodate this which it is understood in
relation to housing development is simply wiring and ducting.
This may be seen as an unnecessary barrier but could swap Method Statement for Deliveries/Waste with the
Sustainable Design Statement. The SDS is much more valuable and could include minimizing waste and
deliveries/transport miles; it can’t be easily contested by developer/landowners as it reflects NPPF and CS values.
Might general support be given (but not in a policy) for local products/manufacturing/ companies/low delivery
miles etc.,
This suggestion is helpful
Policy might require a Visual Design Statement submitted within every application to show local built
form/landscape/street scene etc to promote and protect local distinctiveness and help raise design standards locally.
This might be supported by a Village Design Guidelines document.
This is a useful suggestion and might be indicated in the supporting statement to form part of the design statement
which applications can submit. A Village design Guide may be something for the future but should not hold up
progress on the neighbourhood plan at this stage.
Who decides which buildings are considered important and what constitutes ‘adverse impact’?
Herefordshire Council will determine compliance with this policy having publicised and consulted where
appropriate, including with the Parish Council. Buildings of local interest can be identified (NPPF para 135) and
where this is the case would fall within this policy. As an example non-listed buildings within a conservation area
can be judged important to its character and appearance, being significant because of its individual or group

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
contribution. It is accepted this might usefully be assessed in advance but this can be done at the time proposals
are considered which may affect any asset. Assessment of adverse effect upon a heritage asset needs to be judged
on its merits by a professional officer with appropriate qualifications as is currently the case.
We do not agree that these views/land areas are so important as to warrant blanket protection against ALL
development. Some development can make a positive contribution to a landscape and vista, Where is the justification
for these views? Not all of these justify specific protection and a high quality development proposal, might be
acceptable (or desirable) in some of the locations.
The elements referred to are considered to have importance to the community and it is important to respect such
support when meeting obligations under the European Landscape Convention. A number are long established
principles advanced when Kingsland Conservation Area was designated The concerns expressed are acknowledged
in that the protection should be to settings of the conservation area, important buildings and other heritage assets
and the village. The policy should be amended to reflect this. However the protection does relate to ‘inappropriate’
forms of development.
The word ‘limited’ implies restriction, so perhaps it is better to say ‘appropriate’?
It is agreed that the emphasis is not required
Concerned that the 14% indicative growth being used as a total figure or target which implies prevention rather than
promoting proportional growth over the plan period.
The 14% growth is referred to as a target within Herefordshire Core Strategy Policy RA2. It is acknowledged that
there is also an emphasis upon it being a minimum despite the tautological description in Policy RA2. The target
proportion has not been used as a cap.
We also have reservations regarding the use of historic approvals being counted into the numerical target without
any acknowledgement that some of these approvals will not/may not be delivered.
The action of submitting a planning application suggests strongly that then owner is interested in releasing the site
for development and is acknowledged in guidance as a good indicator that land is available. (NPPF para 47 bullet 2
and associated note 11).
We understand from HC is that 14% is only a guide to demonstrate how the rural areas might provide the 5300
homes, which shouldn’t be used to prevent the facilitation of housing, especially on a long term plan.
KNDP plans positively to achieve at least its required contribution to the 5,300 rural dwellings. The promotion of
sustainable development across the County as expressed in Herefordshire Core Strategy requires development to
be directed carefully so that resources are used effectively and efficiently. This does not mean allowing unrestricted
housing development in the County’s villages. KNDP attempts to balance the whole range of sustainable
development requirements to support both its part in achieving the aims of the Core Strategy and those of the local
community.
A medium or large development in Shirlheath might provide some of the missing facilities and amenities; such as
bus stop, community hall, play areas.
It is not the intention to provide a medium or large development in Shirlheath and no specific facilities have been
highlighted as necessary for this fairly dispersed settlement. However Policy KNDP 12 would facilitate the provision
of facilities and amenities if required.

Add ‘unreasonable’ to the statement - ‘there will be no unreasonable detrimental effect upon the local highway…..’
as a proposal to expand/diversify may generate more traffic movements or a change of traffic movements, but if the
highway capacity is sufficient this should still be acceptable.
It is agreed that clarification is needed of the degree of adverse effect. It is understood the usual clarification is
‘significant’
‘Small scale’ is too restrictive and open to interpretation - suggest that this is replaced by ‘proportionate and justified’.
Herefordshire Core Strategy Policy RA6 requires employment generating proposals to be of ‘appropriate’ scale.
More particularly the policy indicates any expansion or extension should be small scale. The character and highway
capacity of the parish is considered such that small scale is appropriate. The term has been used consistently for
rural areas in local plans. The term ‘proportionate and justified’ is itself open to interpretation.
Perhaps consider adding ‘brownfield and greenfield sites’?
This suggestion is welcome
Support for custom build is very welcome –expand the terminology to include ‘Self Build/Custom Build’.
We had understood that ‘custom built’ included ‘self- build’ but in order to be clear a change might be beneficial
Take this support further requiring that large housing developments must show opportunities for Self build,
live/work, single storey etc. There are schemes across the UK where a mix of self-build and speculative
development has worked incredibly well.
This is a useful suggestion although we are unsure this would be considered to comply with the NPPF. Furthermore
the outstanding requirement to meet the housing target does not need larger developments and none are
proposed. It is however a very useful suggestion that might be forwarded to Herefordshire Council and other
neighbourhood planning groups. We will see whether we can assist with this but it should not form part of this plan
The plan should emphasise provision of family homes (with family sized gardens), homes for the elderly/infirm,
Live/Work houses with a degree of flexibility/adaptability etc., to show a vibrant and diverse community with a wide
range of housing needs.
KNDP 14 requires housing developments with three or more dwellings to provide a mixture of types and sizes of
dwellings. Herefordshire Local Housing Market Assessment indicates a breakdown of house sizes in terms of
number of bedrooms that would be appropriate within the Leominster Housing Market Area. This might usefully
form advice within the plan.
Policies should discouraged urban/suburban layouts, templates, designs, markers or anything that was ‘estate’ like
or inward looking and undermined community cohesion. Design standards should be set to require ‘exemplary’,
‘innovative’, ‘creative’ , ‘locally distinctive’ , ‘exceptional’ (all of which are used in NPPF etc.) proposals and avoid
ubiquitous, ordinary, substandard speculative developer fare.
Innovative and creative design is not resisted but it must be sensitive to the character of its surroundings, Housing
policies for settlements have been reviewed and it is considered they include sufficient criteria to cover these
matters in the most appropriate way. The supporting statement (para XXX) refers to innovative design
Provide some guidelines for development sizes. Nothing larger on one site in one application than 10 units and under
perhaps?

Suggested Changes
Parish Council Consideration (In blue)
NPPF requires that we use land efficiently. It would be difficult to set an arbitrary limit, especially if it could not be
supported by sites of such size to meet the housing targets. In any event the further sites expected to come
forward through this plan are generally small.
Delivery of housing should be phased over the plan period to ensure that approvals are brought forward rather than
being sat on by the landowner.
It is understood Government expects the market to dictate phasing, although examples of phasing to ensure
housing does not all come forward at the beginning of the plan period have been seen. The mechanisms available
to ensure land comes forward and is not held back are draconian and little used. This would be a matter for
Herefordshire Council.

Comment Parish/
Council Consideration (in blue)
Supportive of the content of the document, particularly its’ emphasis on local distinctiveness and overall consider it to
be a well-considered, concise and fit for purpose document that effectively embraces the ethos of “constructive
conservation. English Heritage considers it is a very good example of community led planning.
Noted
Opportunity should be taken to reference the detailed information contained in the Herefordshire Farmsteads
Characterisation Project. Suggest adding new section “d) In considering repair, alteration or conversion of historic
farmsteads due reference should be made and detailed consideration be given to the Herefordshire Farmsteads
Characterisation Project.”
Accept suggestion with minor change to indicate information should inform ‘significance’ in accordance with NPPF para
128
The importance of archaeology is highlighted in the supporting statement to the policy and it would strengthen the
policy by adding: “e) At an early stage in the formulation of planning proposals intending developers should consult the
Herefordshire Council Historic Environment Record and as deemed appropriate comply with the requirements of
Herefordshire Council’s Archaeology and Development Supplementary Planning Document”.
Accept suggestion with minor change to indicate more specifically that appropriate archaeological investigations are
carried out and in the event of significant and / or extensive remains being found they should be preserved in-situ in
accordance with para. 135 of the NPPF
Supportive of the vision, objectives and policies set out in the KNDP

Amendment
Number
No change

See proposed change
26

See proposed change
27

No change

Noted

Policies
KNDP1(b);
KNDP7 and
KNDP9
Kingsland
village

Support

Welcome these provisions

No change

Noted

Comment

No issues in providing a supply of water for the growth proposed for this settlement. There are incidents of flooding
related to sewerage which dependant on the location of proposed housing growth, will need to be resolved prior to
development taking place and no schemes are programme and therefore developers may need to either wait for
improvements or alternatively fund the required improvements. There is limited capacity at our Kingsland Wastewater
Treatment Works at present; therefore improvements may be required to accommodate the growth proposed. Should
potential developers wish to progress a site prior to our Regulatory investment, a feasibility study of the treatment
works may be required to establish the improvements needed and to be funded by the developer.

No change

Noted – limited development over and above commitments is proposed in Kingsland village while development within other parish
settlements will ensure the housing target is met.

Shirlheath

Comment

No issues in providing a supply of water for the growth proposed for this settlement. Are no public sewerage facilities in
this settlement.

No change

Noted – limited development proposed but in combination with development in other settlements will ensure housing target is met.
Whole plan

Comment Parish/
Council Consideration (in blue)
If considering developments, rather than individual houses being built. Make reference to the need for ‘Secured By
design’ to be part of the pre-application design process.
No housing site allocations are proposed in view of the number of outstanding commitments while additional new
housing is proposed on individual plots or small sites within existing frontages. Consequently specific reference is
unnecessary.
Consider the policies in the plan do not pose any likely significant risk to internationally or nationally designated nature
conservation or landscape sites and so does not wish to make specific comments on the plan.
Noted
The Neighbourhood Plan area is outside of the defined coalfield and therefore no specific comments to make.

Amendment
Number
No change

No change

No change

Noted
Whole Plan

Comment

No proposals affect the current or (future) operation of the mainline network – no comment.

No change

Noted
Whole Plan

Comment

Housing Policies

Comment

Commended on an excellent plan that takes in all of the issues associated with development within Kingsland and
Shirlheath. It is easy to read and understand yet complex in design and execution, obviously a huge amount of work has
gone into it.

No change

Noted

Current workforce at Kingsland may result in some of the older members leaving the service in the not too distant
future. This provision of a workforce requires homes and business’s being within 5 minutes of the station in the first
instance. The addition of more housing would obviously increase the potential for more community members to come
forward to take up the positions available and ensure that the future requirements of the fire station are met.
I fully understand that this should be carried out whilst maintaining the special characteristics of the village, but
commend you on your plan.

No change

Noted – The Plan will provide for over 65 new dwellings within the parish over the 20 year plan period with emphasis on family housing
which should hopefully provide the potential for more community members to join the service. These dwellings should fall within the 5
minutes travel time requirements.

S8. Sport
England

S9.
Herefordshire
Council

Policy KNDP13

Comment

Para 1.5

Recommend change

Para 2.3

Recommend change

Neighbourhood Plans should plan positively for sport so that it is integrated with development and complies with the
NPPF policy for sport, particular paras 73 and 74. Sport England’s role is to protect playing fields with the presumption
against the loss of playing fields. It will be important that the Neighbourhood Plan reflects the recommendations set out
in the local authorities Playing Pitch Strategy and that any local investment opportunities, such as the Community
Infrastructure Levy, are utilised to support the delivery of those recommendations
No proposals would result in the loss/reduction of playing fields, play areas, other open space and the public rights of
way network. Policy KNDP protects those areas which are available for such uses. There is a major area of playing fields
immediately adjacent to Kingsland village which is utilised by sportsmen and women from a considerable hinterland
beyond then parish. Herefordshire Council has not advised that further playing fields or play areas are required.
Factual amendments to the table – in the second box; once the plan has been submitted, this is the plan which will be
examined. Therefore reference to ‘and any subsequent amendments made’ should be removed

No change

See proposed change
14

Noted – accept recommended change

Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 indicates that decisions should be made in accordance with the adopted
development plan ‘unless material considerations indicate otherwise’. Therefore for clarify reference to the planning
terminology would be helpful in the final sentence of para 2.3

Has a study been undertaken to determine if proportional growth and capacity is available on Grade 3 land to justify
restrict Grade 2 agricultural land?
Land surrounding the three parish settlements falls with agricultural land grades2, 3 and 4. The NPPF requires that land
of poorer quality be used in preference to higher grade land. Proposals for housing in the Plan now provide for infilling
within defined settlement boundaries where this provision is not relevant and no specific site allocations are required in
view of the extensive number of commitments However this reference to agricultural land value is considered
important in the event that further development proposals are advanced over and above those set out in this Plan, and
not only for housing. A change is nevertheless proposed to reflect NPPF and Core Strategy policy on agricultural plan
Is there capacity within the settlement boundary (Kingsland village) to allow for proportion growth? Has the Walks
report been supplemented by availability assessment. Capacity is defined as suitable and available. If so this needs to be
reflected in the text.
It was considered there is sufficient capacity within the settlement boundary to accommodate the required level of
growth for the settlement given the level of commitments. The level of need was small and could easily be
accommodated through a realistic assessment of windfall allowance utilising trend data. Subsequent changes to
Herefordshire Core Strategy sets one target for the parish as a whole to be accommodated across the parish and
primarily within its three settlements. The revised plan will set out how this target will be met.
Shirlheath – can capacity be evidenced. What is the definition of ‘small developments’ in KNDP policy terms? Cross
reference in the text to Policy KNDP15 would be useful.
Given the changes to the Core Strategy referred to above and a change of approach consequent to this, capacity will be
evidenced in terms of total provision within then parish including Shirlheath
The settlement boundary south of the village hall appears odd on the plan with a spur off and dwellings on one side of
the road appear to be inside but not on the other.
It is accepted that the boundary looks odd and this should be addressed. However the dwellings referred to on the north
west side of the road are outside of the settlement boundary because they fall within an ‘exception site’ granted
planning permission for affordable housing to remain so in perpetuity because they fall outside the boundary. To include
them now would potentially alter their status and the purpose of the planning permission and then [parish would lose
much needed affordable housing.
The promotion of walking, cycling, public transport and reducing the need to travel by car - should be added to criteria
b iv
Advice is welcome.
Part 1 /2 refers to this section being objectives. Objectives are not planning policy, therefore some rewording of this
section may be required to differentiate between objectives and policies.
A change will help to clarify matters including a correction to the policy requirements.
Part 2 Views are a difficult area in policy terms. If they cannot be accurately defined then they will be difficult to
enforce. Mapping and evidence of a character assessment to justify protection will be required. The introduction of
mapping at a late stage could give rise to new concerns about the implications of the policy as it is more widely
understood.
The protection of views is important and those considered most worthy of community support have been identified
within the text of this policy. The difficulty in defining these within policy terms is recognised but no different to that

See proposed change
No 25
See proposed change
No 29
See proposed change
No 29

Page 48

Stakeholder

Section/ Policy
Number

Policy KNDP8
General

Support/ Object/
Comment

Comment

Comment

Para 4.6 bullet 2

Recommend change

Para 4.6 bullet 3

Recommend change

KNDP13

Recommend change
Recommend change

Comment Parish/
Council Consideration (in blue)
involving many planning related issues for example, the setting of heritage assets (e.g. Listed buildings, conservation
areas, Scheduled Monuments), or important landscapes such as effect of development upon the scenic beauty of
AONBs. Many of these are defined in text only and do not lend themselves to graphic representation. Herefordshire Core
Strategy does not define on a map a number of features that it wishes to protect or enhance yet planning officers use
their skills to implement these policies. The issue is no different in relation to this policy.
Notwithstanding the above, the policy relates to Kingsland Conservation Area and the whole of Kingsland village falls
within this designation. The policy might more appropriately provide for protection of ‘setting’ which is important in
relation to heritage matters such as character and appearance and the views referred to should be used as part of the
assessment of ‘significance’. A change to reflect this might be proposed.
Speeds can be quite high either side of the central area. If the parking in the village centre was removed, speeds could
get higher. Some feedback has been to make no change to the parking, and increase speed limit enforcement either side
of the village centre. Concerns over the ability to actually enforce (resource wise) any new parking restrictions.
Comment noted. Policy KNDP8 identifies the approach that is needed to address this and related issues in a
comprehensive and integrated way. The extent of parking in the village centre is an issue and it remains a concern that
needs to be addressed to promote safety and sustainable transport measures, in particular walking, which also benefits
health and wellbeing. Measures to achieve self-enforcement can be jointly investigated which is the first element of the
policy.
Safeguarding the line of former railway lines should be incorporated into NPs for sustainable travel use as they are
ideally suited from a gradient point of view for greenways (shared use paths). We have had in the past requests to
include former rail lines in our aspirations for conversion to long distance greenways. Kingsland parish could progress
this themselves in a way similar to the protection of agricultural land. A similar policy could refer to “Protection of
former rail lines in favour of provision of sustainable transport corridors”.
Herefordshire Council has not previously raised this matter as an infrastructure project or advised upon the potential
compensatory implications of such a policy for a potentially non-remunerable public use with the NP Steering Group.
There is no reference to this in Herefordshire Core Strategy. It is felt such a matter would need to be addressed for
significant lengths of route and across parish boundaries. Another implementation vehicle should be used.
Add at end of paragraph - The need for a 20 mph limit within Kingsland village centre close to its primary school and
extending the 30 mph limit in certain other locations such as North Road and Longford
Advice welcome.
Amend to read: There has been a parking problem at the auction site in the past. Parking enforcement is not easy
here due to the more isolated location, lack of street lighting and the large number of vehicles on auction evenings
which makes it risky for enforcement officers. The auctioneer owner was given some advice in 2010 as to how to help
alleviate the problem including better usage of the car park.
The intention of this paragraph is to succinctly highlight what and where problems exist rather than how it might be
addressed. However the advice is welcome and might be included in a later paragraph.
A map should be provided to accompany this policy.
Recommendation agreed but areas should be shown on Kingsland Inset Map
Add at end of last paragraph - Provision should also include safe walking and cycling access.

Comment Parish/
Council Consideration (in blue)
The policy relates to the provision of open space and play areas, although the public rights of way network is referred to
not as a means of access to these but as supplementing open space provision, for example in that it provides an
alternative to parks and gardens within urban areas. However the point raised indicates the need for existing space
serving the wider community should be accessible.
Consideration should be given to the rewording of the policy opening to remove any potential confusion – Criteria ‘a to
k’ apply to Kingsland criteria ‘c to k’ apply to Shirlheath.
It is recognised that the wording is confusing
Are there sufficient deliverable sites within the settlement boundary, as drawn, to accommodate proportion growth? Is
this documented, is the Walk Report a mapped survey and does it include availability criteria.
See response under KNDP2 above (second comment
It would be helpful to show the existing commitments on the Kingsland map to demonstrate that the settlement
boundary been drawn to take account of them.
The commitments comprise sites with a range of sizes. Those that can be represented on the map base might usefully be
shown although it will not be possible or necessary to show very small sites or individual plots. Those sites within or
immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary and not falling within the countryside can be shown where they exist
at the time of publication.
It should be noted that the Core Strategy proportionate figures are a guideline and not a cap.
This is recognised and the policies within KNDP achieve and potentially exceed the required target in the most practical
way that respects the character of its settlements.
There isn’t specific data with regards to the affordable housing other than referring back to the core strategy
Noted. It is understood surveys can be carried out to assess affordable housing need from time to time and according to
resources available. This applies across the County.
Affordable housing can no longer be sought on schemes less than 10 if the combined floor space does not exceed 1000
sq. m.
The policy is stated in the widest possible terms in order to accommodate the requirement current at any time
At the moment we ask for certain standards for the affordable housing when Herefordshire adopt the new Building
Regulations we will only be asking for minimum HQI sizes for the affordable.
Neither the policy no the supporting statement suggests a minimum HQI size for affordable housing, or in fact any other
housing
Suggest that ‘no significant impact’ would be more appropriate to ‘no adverse impact’.
‘No significant effect’ might include positives as well as negatives so would not address the issue concerned. However
the concern expressed is understood and a change is suggested.
Consultation arrangements are a positive approach in the preparation of the plan.
Noted
Welcome
Noted
This is a positive approach in line with the NPPF but would like to see reference to any local affordable housing need
evidence being up-to-date in accordance with NPPF para 50.
Advice welcome

Reason
To reflect change in
version of the plan
To page numbers where
required
To reflect change in
version of the plan
To reflect plan will now
be the submission draft
version to be presented
to Herefordshire Council
under Regulation 15.
To include a foreword to
the plan

To delete Draft KNDP as no
longer a draft in the sense
of presented for
consultation.

Page 51

7

Page 2

8

Page 2

9

Page 2

10

Page 3

11

Page 3

Amend first paragraph to read:
“A draft Neighbourhood Development Plan for Kingsland Parish was published
for public consultation and comments during February and March 2014.
Comments received were considered and some changes made in the light of
these. In addition some further changes were made following modifications to
Herefordshire Core Strategy which principally affected the calculation of the
housing target, which is now based upon a parish figure, and the approach
that should be taken in relation to accommodating development associated
with and the defining of settlements. A further consultation event was
undertaken in relation to development at Shirlheath and Cobnash as a
consequence of the effects the Core Strategy changes had upon them.”
Amend 3rd paragraph by:
i)
Deleting “draft’ before ‘Neighbourhood Development Plan’ in first
sentence;
ii)
Insert ‘Herefordshire Core Strategy’ between ‘Steering Group’ and
local residents’ in last sentence.

To update the paragraph
in the light of the
Regulation 14
consultation and
subsequent changes to
Herefordshire Core
Strategy that required a
change in approach to the
housing target set.

Although a submission
draft it is not presented
as a draft; to include
reference to
Herefordshire Core
Strategy
Amend 4th paragraph by deleting ‘draft’ before ‘Neighbourhood Development Although a submission
Plan’ in the first sentence’
draft it is not presented
as a draft.
th
th
Amend 5 paragraph by amending 5 bullet point to read ‘New homes in The change reflects that
Kingsland village, Shirlheath and Cobnash. The approach to housing outside of Cobnash is now a
these settlements and within the parish’s countryside is also covered.’
settlement
where
development may take
place and that provision
may also be made for
housing
development
outside of settlements.
Amend first sentence of final paragraph of section to read ‘The amended Plan To reflect the current
has been submitted to Herefordshire Council who will publish it for formal
stage of the plan
consultation under Regulation 16 of The Neighbourhood Plan (General)
Regulations 2012.’

Amend page numbers for sections as shown in amended plan
Within paragraph 1.3:
i)
Delete ‘draft’ in first sentence;
ii)
The last sentence should read ‘As required, it also complies with
the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Herefordshire
Core Strategy’
iii)
Amend related footnote to read ‘This document refers to the ‘Core
Strategy’ throughout as it is intended to adopt the final KNDP
following the adoption of Herefordshire Core Strategy.’
Delete paragraph1.5, its heading and chart. Renumber subsequent paragraphs
in section

Amend last sentence in paragraph 1.7 (now 1.6) to read: “The resulting
community preferences, in conjunction with county and national planning
policies, have been built upon and developed into neighbourhood plan
policies, which are outlined in subsequent sections.”
Amend paragraph 1.8 (now 1.7) to refer to the event held in September 2015
and to add a further sentence at the end to read: “In addition formal
consultation processes were undertaken and representations received and
considered.”
Revise the start of the first sentence in paragraph 1.9 (now 1.8) to read “A
Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group was established and consisted of three
members of the Parish Council:”
Refer to ‘policies’ rather than ‘legislation’ in the last sentence to paragraph
1.10 (now 1.9).

To reflect change in page
numbers for the sections
Although a submission
draft it is not presented
as a draft; to reflect the
intention that the plan
will follow adoption of
Herefordshire Core
Strategy
The document is
presented as the plan
which it is hoped will be
approved form adoption
and therefore need not
set out the process for
preparation at this stage.
To indicate the relevant
levels of policies that
have informed the
neighbourhood plan.
To update with
subsequent consultation
events
To reflect the stage the
plan is now at.
To use the correct term

Page 53

20

Section 1
Introduction and
Background

Amend the first two sentences in paragraph 1.16 (now 1.15) to read:
“1.15 Kingsland village has seen a considerable amount of development over recent

21

Section 2 Vision
and Objectives

22

Section 2 Vision
and Objectives

Add at the beginning of paragraph 2.3 “The Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act 2004 indicates that planning decisions should be made in
accordance with the adopted development plan ‘unless material
considerations indicate otherwise.”
Replace draft Policy KNDP 2 with:

years and there are currently a large number of commitments in terms of planning
permissions for new housing. This is expanded upon later in this document. There
remain concerns that a continued increase in dwellings at a rate similar to recent
levels, which is not part of a well thought through plan, could spoil the very
characteristics of the parish that make people want to live and visit here. There has
been no accompanying development of infrastructure such as parking, footways
(pavements), flood management or sewage capacity; all areas which are now
causing residents concern. There is a danger that the character, rural nature and
heritage of the village and wider parish could be irrevocably changed if housing and
development are not sympathetically incorporated, either physically, ecologically or
socially. Similar concerns might be highlighted for new development at Shirlheath
and Cobnash n now that they are indicated as locations for housing within
Herefordshire Core Strategy.”

“The settlements of Kingsland village, Shirlheath and Cobnash will be the focus for
development within the Parish. Limited small scale employment opportunities will
nevertheless continue to be retained and new proposals supported outside of the
parish’s settlements where they have limited negative impact upon amenity and the
environment, especially the landscape. In addition particular regard shall be had to
utilising brownfield land in the first instance and protecting Grades 1 and 2
agricultural land unless land of a lower grade is not available or the need for the
development outweighs this requirement. The accommodation of development to

To reflect the change in
Herefordshire Core
Strategy approach within
Policy RA2

To meet a representation
by Herefordshire Council

To take into account
modifications to
Herefordshire Core
Strategy, in particular in
relation to its policies RA1
and RA2.
To meet representations
in relation to the policy
for agricultural land
quality.

Page 54

meet the needs of the Parish and contribute to County requirements will be based
upon the following approach:
a) To allow for residential development and appropriate other uses within
Kingsland village, a settlement boundary is defined. Development should
take place within this boundary in accordance with relevant policies set out
in this Neighbourhood Plan. Kingsland village will continue to play a major
role as a centre providing a range of facilities for the parish;
b) To accommodate limited residential development within Shirlheath, a
development boundary is defined for the main group of houses comprising
the built up area of the settlement. Housing development shall take place
through infilling upon individual plots or the development of small sites in a
sensitive manner;

To respond to the
community’s comments
in relation to
development at
Shirlheath and Cobnash
resulting from
modifications to
Herefordshire Core
Strategy.

c) To accommodate limited residential development within Cobnash a
development boundary has been defined within which infill development
can take place where this is achieved safely and reflects its particular rural
character, form, layout and setting;

d) Development outside of the settlements listed above should be exceptional
and located in accordance with relevant policies in Herefordshire Core
Strategy, in particular but not exclusively, Policy RA3, and this
Neighbourhood Plan. In this regard no settlement boundary is defined for
that part of Mortimer’s Cross falling within Kingsland Parish and it will be
considered open countryside. The countryside will continue to
accommodate development in association with agricultural and rural
enterprises where these reflect the scale and nature of the landscape within
which they sit.”

23

Section 2 Vision
and Objectives

Relocate Kingsland Village Proposed Settlement Boundary Map from section
and relocate, to an appendix with other proposal maps, enlarge and add
further notations

Replace existing paragraphs 2.5 to 2.8 with new paragraphs 2.5 to 2.7
“2.5 This policy is aligned with the Herefordshire Core Strategy Policy RA2 which
identifies the three settlements as locations where new housing will be
supported. In particular this policy indicates new housing should be located within
or adjacent to main built up areas. Kingsland is the largest settlement and
possesses a range of services and facilities, including a primary school, doctor’s
surgery, garage and post office, two public houses and village hall. Consequently it
should accommodate the major part of the housing target set for the parish.
Although Shirlheath is listed in Herefordshire Core Strategy table 4.20 together with
Kingsland as a location which should be a primary focus for housing it has no
services or facilities and its built up area is small. The approach proposing a small
amount of development is considered to comply with the Core Strategy’s
requirement for growth to be sensitive and appropriate. Cobnash is identified as a
smaller settlement that might accommodate development. As with Shirlheath,
Cobnash contains no facilities or services. In these settlements the location of
development should demonstrate particular attention to its form, layout, character
and setting. How the issues pertinent to each settlement have been taken into
account is described later in this plan. A settlement boundary for Mortimer’s Cross
is not expected to include land within the parish of Kingsland. Outside of the
parish’s settlements development would need to accord with the rural area policies
set out in Herefordshire Core Strategy, in particular but not exclusively, Policy RA3,
and this Neighbourhood Plan.

being presented. Bring
together various
proposals maps to be
consistent.
To explain the basis for
the revised strategic
policy KNDP 2 by setting
out the approach taken
in relation to
accommodating new
housing in accordance
with Herefordshire Core
Strategy Policies RA1 and
RA2 which were subject
to modification after the
regulation 14 draft was
presented for comment.

2.6
Other forms of development will come forward within the parish and this
policy directs where these might be. They include land for employment, services,
facilities and infrastructure. Those considered most likely to be required, are
explained in greater detail later within this plan. Where proposals are not covered
by this plan then Herefordshire Core Strategy policies would be used, as long as they
are sustainable in accordance with KNDP 1. With this in mind it will be required to
Kingsland Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation Statement (November 2015)

Page 56

consider building on brownfield and existing sites and lower grade agricultural land,
before taking land of higher quality as defined in the NPPF and Herefordshire Core
Strategy.
2.7 This policy is also aligned with Kingsland Parish Plan, which is based upon the
various views expressed in the survey completed by over 50% of residents. It is also
in accord with the results from the June 2014 and September 2015 community
consultation events for this Plan.”

25

Section 2 Vision
and Objectives

Change policy KNDP 3:
In b replace’ Site’ with ‘Onsite’

To respond positively to
representations received
including from within the
business sector.

In b) iv) add ‘public transport’ after ‘cycling’.
Amend d to read:
“d. The submission and adoption of a sustainable design statement.
Developers should preferably set out their integrated sustainable design approach
within the design and access statement submitted with their planning application.
This should include, where appropriate measures, for minimising waste and
reducing transport miles, and the transportation of materials to and from site
(including waste).”

26

Section 3
Kingsland Parish
Character and
Environment

Add additional criterion to KNDP 5 as follows:
“d. In considering repair, alteration or conversion of historic farmsteads due
reference should be made and detailed consideration be given to the Herefordshire
Farmsteads Characterisation Project.”

To respond positively to
representations received
from English Heritage.

Page 57

27

Section 3
Kingsland Parish
Character and
Environment

Add additional criterion to KNDP 5 as follows:
“e. At an early stage in the formulation of planning proposals intending
developers should consult the Herefordshire Council Historic Environment
Record and as deemed appropriate comply with the requirements of
Herefordshire Council’s Archaeology and Development Supplementary
Planning Document. In particular appropriate archaeological investigations
shall be carried out and in the event of significant and / or extensive remains
being found they should be preserved in-situ in accordance with para. 135 of
the NPPF”

To respond positively to
representations received
from English Heritage.

28

Section 3
Kingsland Parish
Character and
Environment

Add a further supporting statement at 3.10

To respond positively to
representations received
from within the business
sector.

“3.10 In order to protect the character and appearance of Kingsland parish’s natural
and historic environment applications which might have impacts on either or both
components should be accompanied by a design statement showing what the visual
and other effects might be and how they would be mitigated should this be
required.”
Renumber subsequent paragraphs

29

Section 3
Kingsland Parish
Character and
Environment

In KNDP 6 redraft the beginning of the policy to the following:

To meet a representation
by Herefordshire Council.

Proposals to enhance the landscape setting, character and local distinctiveness of
Kingsland village will be supported; especially those that address the detailed
conservation and environmental requirements set out below.
Development proposals will only be permitted where they:
i) Conserve or enhance the character and appearance of Kingsland Conservation
Area

ii) Do not adversely affect the setting of important buildings and other heritage
assets within the village
iii) Meet the detailed conservation and environmental criteria established for the
conservation area as set out below.
The following conservation and environmental criteria should be complied with in
order to conserve or enhance Kingsland Conservation Area:
1. Proposals for development should preserve important settings where they relate
to the character and appearance within, into and from the conservation area. These
should remain protected from inappropriate forms of development. Key settings
and characteristics include:
a) The approach into Kingsland from the south along the B4360 including The
Shrublands and its gardens, which forms a focal point at the entrance to the village
b) The open aspect to the south of Longford
c) Long distance views of St Michael’s and All Angels Church particularly from the
east and south
d) The setting of the combination of the Church, the Motte and Bailey Castle
Scheduled Ancient Monument and the Millennium Green
e) The sense of enclosure within the village historic core formed principally around
the staggered crossroads at the Corners Inn with its concentration of listed
buildings, extending south east to Fairfield Cottage, north east to Myrtle Cottage
north west to Lilac Cottage and south west to Kingsland House (The old Rectory)
f) The clear separation between Kingsland village and West Town

2. New development should contribute …….. etc
3. Trees and hedgerows should be an integral part of any new development
as essential components of the rural character of Kingsland Village as well as
Shirlheath and Cobnash: (etc)
Kingsland Neighbourhood Development Plan – Consultation Statement (November 2015)

Page 59

…..
f) The retention of small or remnant hedgerows that currently remain
within the village and have been used to mark building frontages is
considered highly important. Further provision of native hedgerows will
be encouraged wherever possible.”
Renumber criteria
In 4) delete “in particular in the form of street furniture,”
30

Section 3
Kingsland Parish
Character and
Environment

In 3.12 replace “LA2” with “LD4”
Amend the first sentence in paragraph 3.13 to read: “In preparing the Parish Plan
significant majorities of the community expressed a preference for the following:”

To emphasise the
community contribution
to plan preparation/

Within bullet points replace “hedges” with “hedgerows”

31

Section 4 Ensuring
Essential
Infrastructure

At end of paragraph 4.2 refer to “policies SD4 and ID1”
Add at end of second bullet point in paragraph 4.6 “such as North Road and
Longford.”

To meet a representation
by Herefordshire Council.

In Policy KNDP14 first sentence delete “including in association with development
proposals”

32

Section 4
Ensuring Essential
Infrastructure

Add new statement and paragraph after paragraph 4.8 to say:
“4.9 There has been a parking problem at the auction site in the past.
Parking enforcement is not easy here due to the more isolated location, lack
of street lighting and the large number of vehicles on auction evenings.”

Delete paragraph 6.1 and replace introduction to section with the following
paragraphs 6.1 to 6.4:

“Where appropriate and possible developers should ensure such space and the
public rights of way network are as accessible as possible, including through a
choice of sustainable means.”

“6.1 Herefordshire Core Strategy requires a minimum of 65 dwellings to be built
within Kingsland parish over the period 2011 to 2031. Between 2011 and October
2015, 10 dwellings were completed and 37 dwellings had received planning
permission. These figures were subsequently updated and by October 2015, 10
dwellings were completed and 37 dwellings had received planning permission.
Consequently some 47 dwellings were already proposed leaving a minimum
shortfall of 18 further dwellings to be found.

To explain in greater
detail the background to
housing provision in the
light of representations
received for further
information

6.2 Paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides advice
upon how to assess any windfall allowance indicating in particular it should have
regard to historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends. Past rates for
housing windfall developments within the parish’s countryside have been high over
the past 14 years suggesting in excess of 2.3 dwellings per annum. Should this rate
continue it would equate to 38 dwellings over the remainder of the plan period.
However this figure includes a number of large developments that are unlikely to

occur again and a more modest estimate of 12-17 dwellings between 2015 and 2031
is considered appropriate as an allowance for rural windfall dwellings.
6.3 On the basis of the minimum figure for rural windfalls, only some 6 further
dwellings are needed in order to achieve Herefordshire Core Strategy’s target for
the parish. However it is recognised that this figure is a minimum and that in
planning positively for development this Neighbourhood Plan should enable
development to meet its local needs. It is estimated that the policies put forward
present the opportunity for between a further 40 and 55 houses in addition to
current commitments. Currently the amount of affordable social rented housing for
local people proposed through outstanding planning permissions appears sufficient
to meet needs. Some seven social rented dwellings are proposed across two sites
within the parish and this matches the needs expressed in the parish housing survey
and three intermediate properties are proposed which is greater than the need
identified. Survey evidence suggests the greatest need to be in the open market
sector and the community recognises the need to provide opportunities for local
young people to custom-build their own homes through self-build or commissioned
housing. The most appropriate way to enable this is to provide individual plots or
small sites within the three settlements. Allocated sites have failed to deliver this
potential and an approach based on providing infill opportunities is advanced.
6.4 Having previously received general support for proportional growth within the
parish’s settlements, this overall approach has been retained despite the change in
Herefordshire Core Strategy policy RA2. The following housing policies reflect this. “

36

Section 6 Meeting
Housing Needs

Insert new paragraph introducing housing issues for Kingsland
“6.5 Kingsland village is the principal settlement within the parish and it contains a
range of services and facilities. Development of the village, comprising small sites and
individual plots, has normally taken place within the former settlement boundary.
Some 50 dwellings have received planning permission within that settlement

boundary since 2001. In addition a site for 12 dwellings was approved outside of the
settlement boundary, as windfall, largely because Herefordshire Council did not have
a suitable 5-year supply of housing land at that time. The following policy would
enable a reasonable number of further dwellings to come forward.”

37

Section 6 Meeting
Housing Needs

Replace draft Policy KNDP 14: new Homes in Kingsland Village with:
“To meet housing needs within Kingsland village provision will be made solely
within the defined settlement boundary as shown on the Kingsland Village Inset
Map, and in accordance with the following specific criteria:

i)

ii)
iii)
iv)

v)

vi)

Development shall complement and where possible enhance the
village character and comply with the conservation requirements
for Kingsland Conservation Area, its Listed Buildings and other
heritage assets and their settings, and be in accordance with
Policy KNDP 6;
New development shall be beneficial to the local community and
have no adverse effect upon local services and facilities;
Children’s play areas, open space and other green infrastructure
shall be provided in accordance with Policy KNDP 13;
New housing on sites of 3 or more dwellings shall provide a mix of
house design and size in accordance with identified needs at the
time of application;
Developments, including individual dwellings shall be of a scale,
massing, density and layout compatible with the character, size
and form and the particular part of settlement within which they
are located;
Development will not impair the free flow of traffic or highway
safety and shall provide appropriate parking in accordance with
Policy KNDP8;

To be address
Herefordshire Council’s
concerns about clarity in
terms of which criteria
apply to Kingsland village
and to address
environmental concerns
raised in the consultation

Page 63

vii)

Development shall not unduly harm the amenity of neighbouring
property;
viii) Development shall not adversely affect important features or sites
of biodiversity interest, in particular important trees, orchards and
hedgerow cover and should, where possible, increase and
enhance biodiversity by adding to green infrastructure and
connectivity within the local ecological network;
ix)
Landscape proposals shall form an integral part of the site’s design
and, in particular, contribute towards mitigating the effects of
climate change;
x)
Provision shall be made for affordable housing in accordance with
Herefordshire Core Strategy and local housing need;
xi)
Development expecting to connect to the mains sewer should not
result in the capacity of Kingsland Sewage Treatment Works being
exceeded or for the potential for this to happen in accordance
with Policy KNDP 9.
xii)
Support will be given to proposals comprising custom built and/or
self- build dwellings that comply with other relevant policies
contained within this plan.
xiii) Development shall comply with other relevant policies contained
within this plan and Herefordshire Core Strategy.”
38

Section 6 Meeting
Housing Needs

Add new supporting statement to Policy KNDP14 as follows:
“6.6 Despite recent development upon infill sites within the settlement
boundary there remains the potential for some 31 to 36 dwellings excluding
sites where development might be acceptable within gardens. A significant
number of these are within land to the north of Longford where
Herefordshire Council has indicated a previous designation as protected
open areas and greenspace is not sustainable. Not all of these sites are
expected to come forward within the plan period but evidence of past
trends, at between 3 and 4 dwellings per annum within the village since

To explain in greater
detail the background to
housing provision in the
light of representations
received for further
information

Page 64

2001, suggests a significant proportion would likely be developed. Even if
only a small proportion were to be realised by 2031, and no development
takes place within the other two settlements, the parish target will still be
exceeded.
6.7 The criteria set out in this policy are largely those for which the
community has shown support. In relation to biodiversity, the river
environment is important and particularly the status of the River Lugg which
is an SSSI where it runs close to the village and a Special Area of Conservation
to the south of Leominster. A Nutrient Management Plan has been prepared
for the Rivers Wye and Lugg because of the need to ensure they meet
required conservation status by 2027. Point source pollution through Sewage
Treatment Works is a contributory factor to the River Lugg where in
particular it is failing to meet required targets. The Environment Agency has
advised that Kingsland Sewage Treatment Works is operating close to
capacity. A precautionary approach is required therefore to ensure the
outfall into the River Lugg does not increase pollution. Should this be the
case then the plan would fail to meet its obligations under the Habitats
Regulations. The approach to further housing provision within the village
would allow small incremental growth that would best meet the needs of a
precautionary approach.
6.8 Other criteria seek to ensure development conserves or enhances
Kingsland Conservation Area and the character of the village, that amenity is
protected, and that appropriate regard is given to social and community
needs. An affordable housing site built as an exception to planning policies
provides 10 dwellings just outside Kingsland village settlement boundary.
Additional social housing provision is located at Boarsfield. There are
proposals including further affordable rented housing within or close to the
village through sites referred to within paragraph 6.3, which should meet
local needs. Should any further be required before the end of the plan period
they might come forward through Herefordshire Core Strategy Policy H2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C;
Kingsland Neighbourhood Development Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Consultation Statement (November 2015)

Page 65

Rural Exception Sites, provided there is sufficient capacity within the sewage
treatment works serving the village.”
39

Section 6 Meeting
Housing Needs

Insert new paragraph introducing housing issues for Shirlheath

“6.9 Shirlheath is a scattered settlement for which it is difficult to define a
built-up area. Originally a target of some 7 dwellings was set for its growth. It
does not contain any services or facilities. However it is considered realistic
to assume that its location just to the west of Leominster would be as
attractive to development as Kingsland village. The area considered to form a
built up area for which a development boundary is defined as the area to the
west of the A4110 at Longmoor. The following policy sets out an approach
based upon this premise.”
40

Section 6 Meeting
Housing Needs

Replace draft Policy KNDP 15: new Homes in Shirlheath with:
Residential development will be permitted within the development
boundary defined on Shirlheath Inset Map provided it meets the following
criteria:
i) Development shall be of a design with materials, detailing, scale, massing,
density and layout which contribute positively to the character, size and
form of the settlement;
ii) It will not harm any areas or buildings comprising heritage assets or their
settings;
iii) It will not adversely affect important features or sites of biodiversity
interest, in particular important trees, orchard and hedgerow cover and
should, where possible, increase and enhance biodiversity by adding to green
infrastructure and connectivity within the local ecological network;
iv) It will not impair the free flow of traffic or highway safety and shall
provide appropriate parking in accordance with Policy KNDP8;
v) It will not unduly harm the amenity of neighbouring property;

To amend the draft policy
to reflect modifications to
Herefordshire Core
Strategy Policy RA2 and
to reflect subsequent
views expressed by
residents at a
consultation event. To
enable the policy to be
more self-contained.

Page 66

vi) Landscape proposals shall form an integral part of the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design and, in
particular, contribute towards mitigating the effects of climate change;
vii) Appropriate provision shall be made for sewage treatment that meets
the requirements of Herefordshire Core Strategy Policy SD4;
viii) Appropriate measures to protect any dwellings from noise nuisance shall
be provided for properties that may be constructed in the vicinity of
employment land on the eastern edge of the settlement boundary;
ix) Support will be given to proposals comprising custom built and/or selfbuild dwellings that comply with other relevant policies contained within this
plan;
x) Development shall comply with other relevant policies contained within
this plan and Herefordshire Core Strategy.
41

Section 6 Meeting
Housing Needs

Add new supporting statement to Policy KNDP15 as follows:
â&#x20AC;&#x153;6.10 The potential for some 7 to 12 dwellings is estimated to be available within
the boundary defined. Change to Herefordshire Core Strategy Policy RA2 resulted in
revisions to what was originally intended as the policy for Shirlheath and further
consultation was undertaken with the community to ascertain its views upon the
form of settlement definition that might be proposed. The community at large
preferred a development boundary to be defined although for those residents from
Shirlheath the preference was slightly in favour of defining a built up frontage
within which development might take place. The level of development proposed
remains similar to that indicated in the draft plan. To increase certainty, a
development boundary is defined although it is not as extensive as previously
indicated to take into account the views expressed.

To explain the
background to housing
provision in Shirlheath.

6.11 The form of the area comprising Shirlheath does not lend itself easily to having
a settlement boundary, without having to encompass significant areas of
undeveloped land. The lack of amenities such as footways/pavements, street
lighting, speed limits, community buildings, gathering places, shops and facilities of
Kingsland Neighbourhood Development Plan â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Consultation Statement (November 2015)

Page 67

any kind make the village a less sustainable location for a greater level of
development. “

42

Section 6 Meeting
Housing Needs

43

Section 6 Meeting
Housing Needs

Relocate Map of Shirlheath village to an appendix with other proposal maps;
amend to reflect change in policy

To be consistent with
other proposals maps and
to take into account
changes resulting from
modifications to
Herefordshire Core
Strategy
Insert new paragraph introducing housing issues for Cobnash:
To introduce the issue of
housing provision in
“6.12 Cobnash is a small settlement to the south of Kingsland and east of Shirlheath. Cobnash.
Its core is located at the junction of the B4360 and the road from Cobnash to
Shirlheath where the former has a sharp right angled bend. Just to the west of the
junction, Broomyhill Lane leads off the Shirlheath road. The settlement’s character
is that of an historic hamlet between farms, which on its outer edge, is separated by
small fields forming notable gaps. Previoulsy Herefordshire Core Strategy indicated
Cobnash to be a settlement accommodating proportional growth where this
provided for local needs only. Such a proportion might have amounted to 4
dwellings. Modifications to Herefordshire Core Strategy removed the requirement
for provision to be only for local housing need. The following policy sets out the
approach to development for this settlement in order to add greater certainty than
would be the case should this have to rely upon Herefordshire Core Strategy policy
RA2.”

To provide a policy to
reflect modifications to
Herefordshire Core
Strategy Policy RA2 and
Page 68

Policy KNDP 16: New Homes in Cobnash

to reflect subsequent
views expressed by
residents at a
consultation event.

“Residential development will be permitted within the development
boundary defined on Cobnash Inset Map provided it meets the following
criteria:
i)
ii)

iii)

iv)
v)

vi)
vii)
viii)

ix)

x)

It will not impair the free flow of traffic or highway safety and shall
provide appropriate parking in accordance with Policy KNDP8
Development shall be of a design with materials, detailing, scale,
massing, density and layout which contributes positively to the
character, size and form and the settlement;
Development adjacent and close to the front of sites facing onto the
B4360 shall contain measures to ensure residents are adequately
protected from noise;
It will not harm any areas or buildings comprising heritage assets or
their settings;
It will not adversely affect important features or sites of biodiversity
interest, in particular important trees, orchard and hedgerow cover
and should, where possible, increase and enhance biodiversity by
adding to green infrastructure and connectivity within the local
ecological network;
Appropriate provision shall be made for sewage treatment that
meets the requirements of Herefordshire Core Strategy Policy SD4;
It will not unduly harm the amenity of neighbouring property;
Landscape proposals should form an integral part of the site’s design
and, in particular, contribute towards mitigating the effects of
climate change;
Support will be given to proposals comprising custom built and/or
self- build dwellings that comply with other relevant policies
contained within this plan;
Development should comply with other relevant policies contained
within this plan and the Core Strategy”

Add new supporting statement to New Policy KNDP16 as follows
“6.13 It is considered there is potential for some 3 to 7 dwellings within the
development boundary. The most important requirement is considered to be the
ability to accommodate safely any further housing upon the highway network.
Consequently a major factor in determining the location and extent of the
development boundary was to avoid creating new accesses onto the B4360 and the
Cobnash to Shirlheath link road. The absence of services and facilities is such that
the location is not one that should accommodate a larger scale of development for
wider sustainable development reasons. The level of development proposed
remains consistent with that which might have resulted from Herefordshire Core
Strategy prior to its modification.

To explain the
background to housing
provision in Cobnash.

6.14 Consultation upon the approach to development in Cobnash was equally split
between those residents who felt there should be no development within the
settlement and those who considered it should accommodate some development.
However those who were resident within the Cobnash area all felt some level of
development should take place. Cobnash residents’ preference was for an infill
boundary to be defined although overall all residents were equally split between
that and a development boundary. The approach adopted seeks to take into
account both by defining a boundary that limits opportunities primarily to building
within a defined frontage while retaining the settlement’s character. This would
include affording the opportunity for the redevelopment of the Old Forge site to
housing provided properties are protected from any significant adverse impacts
upon amenity as a consequence of being located close to the B4360 and highway
safety is not compromised.”

Delete paragraphs 6.2 t0 6.5 and revise old paragraph 6.6 and renumber to 6.15 :
“6.15 A number of requirements set out as policy criteria are common to
developments in all three settlements. The potential for high-density, urban type
developments is not appropriate to the character of all three settlements and their
historical pattern of development. In addition modern, densely packed housing
developments have a noticeable lack of meaningful gardens for children, dogs and
recreation, atypical of the area and the activities which are traditionally important
in rural life. Such estate type developments also limit opportunities for social
cohesion and often represent mediocre design templates. Designs must respect the
particular location, even outside of Kingsland Conservation Area. There is no
restriction on innovative design where this is sympathetic to its surroundings and
setting. Protection of local heritage is of significant importance and where necessary
assessments and evaluations should be undertaken.”

47

Section 6 Meeting
Housing Needs

Add new paragraph 6.16:
“6.16 The parish contains a number of Local Wildlife Sites, primarily
woodland. Land at Kingsleane, to the south west of the village is indicated to
be a Local Wildlife Site on Herefordshire Core Strategy Policies Map,
although it is understood this is now unlikely to meet the qualifying criteria.
Surveys may be required to ensure biodiversity interests are protected and
even enhanced.”

48

Section 6 Meeting
Housing Needs

Amend seconds sentence in paragraph 6.9 (now paragraph 6.19) to read:
“Again it is stressed that should there be a demonstrable need for a range of
affordable local homes which cannot be delivered through this mechanism,
then it is recognised that development outside the settlement boundary may
also need to take place.”

To add further detail
supporting the criteria
listed in the housing
policies.

To add further detail
supporting the criteria
listed in the housing
policies.

To reflect the fact that
this had been mentioned
previously in the plan and
that the point needed
emphasising. To reflect
representation in relation

Page 71

In final sentence of paragraph add ‘up to date’ in front of ‘evidence’.
49

Section 6 Meeting
Housing Needs

Add new paragraph 6.23:
6.23 Table 1 shows the mix of dwelling sizes required within the rural parts of
Leominster Housing Market Area, within which Kingsland Parish is located and
at the time this plan was drafted. Developers should contribute towards
meeting this need, particularly in Kingsland village on sites where 3 or more
dwellings might be built.

to the need for up to date
evidence.
To add further detail
supporting the criteria
listed in the housing
policies.

Table 1: Proportion of Houses required by Size within Rural Part of
the Leominster Housing Market Area

In policy KNDP 16 d) (now policy KNDP 17) add ‘significant’ before ‘detrimental To meet a representation
effect’.
by Herefordshire Council.
In Policy KNDP 16 g) (now policy KNDP 17)redraft to state:
To improve clarity of text
“In relation to the conversion of rural buildings to employment uses, the
character of the buildings should be retained where this is important
including measures to avoid unacceptable external storage and
paraphernalia”
To respond positively to
In policy KNDP 16 h) (now policy KNDP 17) add ‘or brownfield’ after
representations received
‘greenfield’. Replace “ in particular there have” with “where there has”
from within the business
sector.
In Policy KNDP 16 i) (now policy KNDP 17) replace “ They will especially” with
“Proposals for Tourism related activities will”
In policy KNDP 17 c) (now Policy KNDP 18) amend to read:
a) They do not generate an increase in traffic volumes and HGV movements through
settlements.

To improve clarity
To reflect Herefordshire
Core Strategy
terminology

b) In the case of new buildings, development is sited with existing groups of
To improve clarity
buildings where practicable. Where new buildings cannot be located with existing
buildings, new development should not be sited in isolated locations where it will
have a detrimental impact upon the surrounding landscape and the visual
amenity of the parish

53

Section 7
Supporting Local
Businesses

c). There is no significant adverse effect arising from the cumulative effects of too
many developments of a similar nature;

Amend note at bottom of section to read:
“Evidence documents referred to in this plan, together with large versions of
all maps, are listed on www.kingslandlife.com under ‘KNDP Evidence Base’.”

57

Kingsland Village
Inset Map

58

Shirlheath Inset
Map
Cobnash Inset
map
Kingsland Parish
Proposals Map

59
60

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Enlarge Inset Map to present at A3 size
Amend the settlement boundary to the south of the village hall
Revise area showing Kingsland Motte and bailey Scheduled Monument
Show all areas proposed as ‘Local Greenspace;
Show land/areas comprising community facilities
Show sites of 5+ dwellings or 0.25 ha + of housing land which are
commitments with planning permission.

Revise Inset Map to show development boundary
Provide Inset Map showing development boundary
Provide proposals map with appropriate land designations and notations at a
readable scale.

To ensure the
distinctiveness of the
rural setting is
considered.
To be consistent with
previous changes to the
policy criteria. To improve
clarity.
To reflect the current
stage that plan
preparation has reached.
document
To meet a representation
by Herefordshire Council.
To improve presentation
and ability to read; to
show the correct area for
the Scheduled Ancient
Monument; to present
additional information
related to designations
and commitments.
To show the development
boundary
To show the development
boundary
To improve presentation
and ability to read
Page 74

Appendix 9: Consultation on Housing Options for Cobnash and
Shirlheath (As at 5/9/12)
1. The consultation event took place on Friday 4th and Saturday 5th September in the Parish
Church, Kingsland. All residents of the Parish were circulated with a notice of the event well
beforehand. The event took place from 5 – 7pm on Friday 4th September and between 10.00 am
and 2.00pm on Saturday 5th September.
2. Table 1 below provides the raw data in terms of choice of options for both Cobnash and
Shirlheath from returns received on the two days, Further returns may be received on line
Respondent From
Cobnash
Shirlheath
Kingsland Village
Elsewhere in Parish
Outside Parish
Prefer Not To Say
TOTAL

3. In addition to asking people which options were preferred space was provided for
comments. The following issues were raised through this and also noted from conversations.
4. Cobnash
i) By far the greatest concern related to the highway safety issues that were already
present and might be exacerbated as a consequence of further development, and that
would affect whether further housing development could and should be
accommodated. The concerns included (14 mentions in total):
 The inadequacy and danger of road junctions at Cobnash. This included the
junction of the B4360 with the road to Shirlheath and the junction of Broomyhill
Lane also with the road to Shirlheath;
 Traffic speed along the main routes and the absence of a speed restriction and
traffic calming;
 Visibility along the main routes;
 The condition of Broomyhill Lane itself in terms of width, absence of passing bays,
large vehicles that already use the lane from an existing haulage business, and its
ability to accommodate traffic from new houses;
 The absence of any footpath anywhere within the village and particularly a link to
Kingsland;
 The danger that would result from creating further accesses onto the main roads
through the settlement;

Whether solutions might be found to traffic problems such as the introduction of a
30 mph limit, banning HGVs along certain routes (except for access); creation of a
roundabout at the principle junction, and a new footpath from Cobnash to the
Shrublands
ii)
The second highest set of comments (5) indicated that further
development should be limited with additional comment from 2 that this
should in particular be along Broomyhill Lane. Two comments in
association with the above responses suggest that there should not be a
negative view about development at Cobnash.
iii) The next issue raised (3 mentions in total) was the effect of further
development as proposed by the two options on the rural character of the
settlement. A further comment suggested that there should be a criteria
based policy only.
iv) There were individual comments about accommodating sewage and the
need to define exactly where Cobnash was.
v)
Two comments related specifically to the settlement boundary cutting
through the middle of one garden; that the site had potential for
development with options for access.
vi) Two comments suggest that any development in Cobnash should utilise
the brownfield site of the Old Forge.
Shirlheath
i)
Some 5 people indicated that there should be no development in
Shirlheath, which they felt should all be located in the main village
(presumably Kingsland village);
ii)
Some 4 comments suggested that Longmoor was the most appropriate
place for development at Shirlheath;
iii) Three comments indicated support for the settlement boundary with a
further four comments suggesting it should be extended - one suggested
up to the A4110, and another that it should be made bigger to give the
area a ‘village feel’. Two comments suggest that the SB approach is best in
terms of providing housing for local people;
iv) Two comments however wanted the SB to be reduced to exclude the area
around ‘Mayfield’ and adjacent properties. A further comment wanted the
boundary to exclude land at the back of their property.
v)
One comment indicated that the infill approach was more appropriate to
maintain the character of the area concerned.
vi) Alternatives to the two options presented included using brownfield land
at Longmoor instead (2). Another 2 comments indicated that neither of
the options were appropriate and that a criteria of ‘on its merits’ approach
should be adopted;

One comment suggested that for development top take place along
Longmoor improvements to the lane’s junction with the A4110 would be
needed.
General Comments
i)
There is a need for affordable housing/starter homes for local young
people (3);
ii)
There is a need for elderly persons’ accommodation (2);
iii) There are too many large/executive homes already (2);
iv) The options are totally inappropriate to provide affordable housing;
v)
The areas covered are too isolated for development with reliance on cars;
vi) Brownfield sites should be redeveloped before any greenfield sites are
taken;
vii) Youi need to retain the rural character of the two settlements;
viii) Why not use both settlement boundaries and infilling as in Kingsland?
ix) Concerned about loss of village shop and PO in Kingsland village;
x)
‘Waste of money’.